On Oct. 2, the day after Jagmeet Singh became leader of the NDP, he did an interview with Terry Milewski on CBC-TV. At the end of the interview, Milewski asked him to denounce Talwinder Parmar, the terrorist behind the 1985 Air India bombing, which killed 329 people, mostly Canadians.

Singh dodged the question repeatedly, suggested that Parmar might not be responsible for the bombing, and in a later scrum said that the question was racist.

Viewers complained to CBC about the segment, but on Dec. 6, the CBC ombudsman found, correctly, that Milewski, who has been covering the Air India tragedy for decades, was posing “a relevant journalistic question.”

So, in his first day in Ottawa, Singh failed to denounce a terrorist and made an unfounded accusation of racism. He looked like a talented rookie called up from the AHL complaining to the ref after his first time in the corners of a big rink.

Singh is an appealing, ambitious 38-year-old, and there is a large, friendly constituency open to his leadership, but his previous political experience as deputy leader of the Ontario NDP has not prepared him for this job, and he has surrounded himself with inexperienced loyalists.

Longtime New Democrats are watching with concern. The new leader, who does not have a seat in the House of Commons, is spending a lot of time on the road, not a lot of time in Ottawa, which is—duh—where all the cameras are. He has no plans to run for a seat any time soon and his message, delivered to regional media outlets, often diverges from the message his caucus is pushing in Ottawa.

Singh is said to be a quick study, but the veterans who ran the operation for Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair are gone, meaning there is nobody on the coaching staff who can point Singh in the right direction.

On Nov. 6, at a get-to-know-the-new-leader meeting for NDP staff, Nasha Brownridge, the president of the union local that represents NDP workers on the Hill, asked Singh about banked overtime issues for staffers who were laid off during the election. Singh misunderstood the question and told the shocked staffers that politics sometimes requires people to work after 5 p.m. He later met with Brownridge to apologize, and she sent an email to staff to clear the air, noting “much concern and upset” among her brothers and sisters. This is not how things usually work in NDP-land, and someone leaked the email.

There are signs that Singh is also causing concern and upset in the caucus that, when he happens to be in Ottawa, he is supposed to lead. Last Wednesday, Singh told reporters that he thinks that a judge who speaks an Indigenous language but not French should be eligible for appointment to the Supreme Court, contradicting longstanding NDP policy. When MPs arrived later for question period, they flatly contradicted him, and he issued a statement reversing himself.

The NDP beachhead in Quebec, which was won after years of patient work by Layton, Mulcair and dedicated Quebec lefties, is in danger of disappearing in the next election.

Quebecers, like the French, are uneasy with open displays of religiosity, and Singh wears a turban. The Bloc, which takes it cues from the increasingly anti-immigration Parti Québécois, can be expected to jab at Singh’s religion in an effort to win back voters it lost to Layton.

The Quebecers in Singh’s caucus ought to be considering their career choices, given the polls, which show the Liberals poised to make gains in Quebec. Those MPs need Singh freelancing on bilingualism like they need an unnecessary penalty at the end of the third period.

And other NDP MPs are finding it hard to explain Singh’s proposal to decriminalize hard drugs. There is solid academic research to suggest this is a good idea, but it sounds better on Queen Street West or Vancouver’s east side than it does in Jonquière or Churchill.

The biggest debate in Ottawa since Singh became leader has been about taxes, including tax evasion. This should be an easy one for the NDP, since the party attacked the previous government, and the one before that, for not taking action on tax havens.

Somehow, though, they have been elbowed out of the way by the Conservatives, who are managing to portray themselves as the party fighting for the working class against the elitists in the Liberal party, with Pierre Poilievre, champion of the downtrodden, leading the way.

It’s Singh’s job to get his party into the story, and he has failed to do that, largely because he is not only not in the House of Commons but not even in Ottawa, which is where, again, all the cameras are.

Singh does not have a chief of staff or director of communications yet in place. He is too often out of step with his caucus. His party is facing the most left-wing government since Pierre Trudeau was in office, which poses a difficult political problem for New Democrats.

The good news is that the election is almost two years away and Singh has a winning way, particularly with young people, who will be more important in the next election than any election in a long time.

But if he wants to play in the big leagues, he’d better start showing the fans that he knows where the net is.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jagmeet-singhs-rookie-blunders/feed/12Jagmeet Singh and the shunning of Parliamenthttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jagmeet-singh-and-the-shunning-of-parliament/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jagmeet-singh-and-the-shunning-of-parliament/#commentsMon, 20 Nov 2017 19:29:48 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=1078413Evan Solomon on the troubling and flawed decision by the new NDP leader not to fight for a seat and 'show up for work' as an MP

Jagmeet Singh celebrates with supporters after winning the first ballot in the NDP leadership race to be elected the leader of the federal New Democrats in Toronto on Sunday, Oct. 1, 2017. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young

If the Doomsday seers are right, this is the end times for some of the most important elements of our democracy. Newspapers, for example, have been hit by a digital meteor. The Shattered Mirror, a Public Policy Forum report on the future of news, reads like an archeologist’s treatise on an extinction event. “In 1950 there were more papers sold every day than the country has households…today, fewer than one in five households pays for newspapers.” But as worrisome as that may be to some, there’s a much more troubling concern: what if Parliament is next?

Is cutting the parliamentary cord the new reality in the digital world of selfies, Instagram and social media? Nothing highlights this fear more than the refusal of the new NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh, to run for a seat before the next election—two years from now. Two years without a seat? Two years without holding the Prime Minister to account in question period? Without personally working on key legislation like the legalization of pot, the budget, sending Canadian troops into harms way on a potential “peacekeeping” mission? There are four by-elections coming up, but Singh will not run in any of them, preferring to wait until 2019, when he will run in Brampton where he once held his provincial seat. You might think this would elicit gasps, but instead of criticism for the long delay, there’s actually been praise.

Political tactician Jamie Watt recently wrote a column in the Toronto Star lauding Singh’s decision to skip out of Parliament. “Jagmeet Singh does not need a seat in the House of Commons,” Watt argued. “There was a time when the Commons was both the symbolic and functional home of Canadian politics, but it matters less today than it ever has before.” Watt suggests that it is more effective to spend time touring the country, building the party and using social media to garner attention. Bypassing Parliament is, apparently, Democracy 2.0. Is Parliament really passé?

Don’t be so sure. Both strategically and philosophically, having a seat in Parliament is important and ought to stay that way. As a matter of strategy—which is what pundits usually focus on—Watt and others often point to the Mulcair Mistake as a warning for any leader. Winning in question period for Tom Mulcair proved useless in the general election, so don’t overvalue it. Only pundits inside the “Ottawa bubble” care about the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate, goes this kind of thinking, but voters don’t.

The truth is, however, that Mulcair’s brilliant performance in the House profoundly helped him politically. It is what led him to the frontrunner status early in the 2015 battle. The election was his to lose until his clumsy stump performance and play-it-safe policy book did him in. Parliament propelled Mulcair to national relevance; the campaign trail destroyed him. “I would agree,” Karl Bélanger, Mulcair’s former principal secretary, told me. “Mulcair earned a lot of kudos for his performance in the House and his name recognition shot right up during the Duffy-Wright affair. It helped create the conditions to make the NDP a real contender for government.”

If the Mulcair Mistake is invoked incorrectly, what about Jack Layton’s long period without a seat? Like Alexa McDonough, the leader he replaced, Layton spent 18 months outside of the House. Singh frequently invokes this as a justification for his decision not to run. See how successful he was? But again, the conclusion is misleading and frankly, shouldn’t offer any real comfort for the NDP. In his first election after he was elected, Layton only won 19 seats, five more than the previous election but still two less than the party won in 1997. “It took Layton seven full years after he first won—humping it both in the House and out—before he finished…second,” a senior Liberal told me. “So if Singh’s plan is to finish second in 2026…” He let that one hang in the air.

Bélanger agrees. “Layton struggled mightily after becoming Leader in 2003. Having more time to tour the country and build the party was good, but we had to be very creative to generate any kind of media attention anywhere in the country. In many cases, despite our efforts, media were a no-show.” So the Singh rationale is at best high risk, and at worst strategically incomprehensible.

What about Justin Trudeau? Again, this is a point frequently cited by the Singh camp. Trudeau also spent less time in the House as an MP before he won, letting Mulcair do the hard parliamentary slogging. But again, Trudeau was an MP. It’s foolhardy to underestimate the fact that Trudeau won a seat in Papineau, which was far from a sure thing. That campaign tested his mettle and showed he was ready to fight to win his own place in politics. The idea that he sacrificed parliamentary attendance to criss-cross the country to rebuild his party ignores the fact that he actually had a seat.

“There is a profound difference between choosing not to spend more time in the House and not being in the House because you aren’t a member,” says EKOS president Frank Graves. “I think it would be a strategic error to not run for a seat. Most voters would think that someone who is presenting him or herself as a potential PM should at least have the authority of being a sitting member of Parliament. Being an MP not only adds legitimacy and authority, it also provides important opportunities for the leader to show his leadership and debate skills in the House.”

I’ve asked Singh why he won’t run in one of the four upcoming by-elections, and he shrugged it off as a minor issue. He knows he has a much better chance to win the seat in Brampton in the next election, and he doesn’t want to risk losing now. But fundamentally the message is clear: he just doesn’t believe being in Parliament, asking questions and working on legislation, is important.

That’s a troubling sign for any democracy. Of course a seat in Parliament is no guarantee of broader electoral success, and while new media has forced politicians to develop new strategies to connect with Canadians, Parliament is still the heart of a democracy. Pierre Trudeau’s famous 1969 dictum is still relevant: “50 yards from Parliament Hill, [opposition MPs] are no longer honourable members—they are just nobodies.” Even with the tempest of digital media, very few Canadians know who Singh is right now. Why would he chuck the best place to make a name for himself?

Liberals are not unhappy that Singh is absent from the House, especially now as the opposition is busy scoring huge points on the back of the Morneau controversy over blind trusts and conflict of interest. “The party best served by an irrelevant Parliament would be the party in power,” Bélanger warns. In other words, while being an MP is not crucial for a leader—it doesn’t decide election results—it matters strategically.

Philosophically, there is, perhaps, a deeper concern. Does absence show fundamental contempt for Parliament? If Singh truly wants to restore confidence in democracy, if he wants to be the antidote to a corrosive political cynicism—and surely that is a pillar of the NDP offer to voters—then shouldn’t he prove it by joining the club he hopes to lead? “This is a fundamental error of strategy,” says Graves. “I’m not saying it is a fatal error, merely that it has way more downside than upside.”

After all, it was none other than Jack Layton who destroyed Michael Ignatieff in 2011 by raising his attendance record in the House. “You know, most Canadians, if they don’t show up for work, they don’t get a promotion,” Layton said, and Ignatieff’s political career was over. Don’t think that won’t be trotted out in 2019.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jagmeet-singh-and-the-shunning-of-parliament/feed/13Jagmeet Singh on his path to the prime minister’s officehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jagmeet-singh-on-his-path-to-the-prime-ministers-office/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jagmeet-singh-on-his-path-to-the-prime-ministers-office/#commentsFri, 06 Oct 2017 10:39:44 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=1066525The new NDP leader sees opportunity across the country to connect with voters and capitalize on some key Liberal errors

New federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh at Queen’s Park in June 2017. (Photograph by Jennifer Roberts)

New NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has his sights firmly set on the next federal election, and his path to the prime minister’s office runs through, well, everywhere.

The Ontario MPP took the helm of the federal party after a first-ballot victory in the long-running leadership race last weekend. Although Singh hasn’t conclusively ruled out running in a byelection for a seat in the House of Commons—he’s said he’s open to advice on the matter—he has repeatedly suggested he plans to use the months before the 2019 contest to meet voters across the country.

The NDP currently has 44 MPs in the Commons, so the party will have to add a significant number to stand a chance of forming government at the federal level for the first time. Singh sees promise all across the country, particularly in the big cities. “We’re definitely going to pick up seats in Atlantic Canada again,” he said in an interview with Maclean’s this week. He also pointed to the NDP’s long history in the Prairie provinces, and hopes to win back seats in Quebec, specifically in Montreal. There has been considerable conjecture as to the party’s ability to garner support in Quebec with Singh as leader; it’s where he’s headed next, to Montreal as well as to campaign in the upcoming Lac-Saint-Jean by-election.

While the party’s history gives him hope of success in some areas, in others he is drawing on his own personal connections. “Lots of endorsements in B.C. [in the leadership race],” he says, pointing to the time he’s spent in downtown Vancouver as well as suburban areas.

The ring of ridings around Toronto has been an increasingly important electoral battleground in recent contests, with the current Liberal and previous Conservative majority both relying on sweeps of the region. Singh is targeting it, and the city core, as well. “Toronto is where I have incredibly strong roots,” he says. “That’s going to be an area of growth for us for sure.”

Singh was similarly optimistic about the Peel region in the 2015 election, campaigning for the federal party there and telling the National Post that the communities who had previously voted Conservative “are going to move away from the party.” They did—just to the Liberals, with the NDP not managing even a second place finish in any of the 10 ridings in Brampton and Mississauga. As to why that happened, “I [want] to say something cheeky like, ‘I wasn’t leader yet,‘ ” Singh jokes.

His real answer is that the NDP’s campaign failed to connect with voters. “More than anything, people respond to a message, a campaign, that evokes emotion [and] really speaks to the hearts of people,” he says. “That’s something that I do.” Just as important as policy—the list he has taken to repeating includes inequality, climate chance, reconciliation and electoral reform—is communicating it in a personal, inspiring way.

In his victory speech, Singh referenced the need to combat what he called “the growing politics of division.” These forces are separating communities that have a lot in common, he believes. “Most people are in a position where they’re working, they’re worrying about the future, they’re uncertain about their children’s future,” Singh says.

He sees the politics of division being practiced on the right, and cites Donald Trump as “probably the best example, or the worst example.” The U.S. president, Singh says, is pitting the working poor against each other even though their interests are aligned.

The NDP will have to run against Justin Trudeau’s Liberals and Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives in 2019. The former is practicing the “politics of niceties and good words,” Singh says, while the latter “is going to play into some of the more divisive politics.”

Singh also thinks the government’s controversial proposed changes to the small-business tax regime frame the issues in a divisive way, instead of advancing “progressive” and “fair” taxation. “[Trudeau is] not really going after folks that can truly make the investments that we need to make,” the NDP leader says, claiming that fixing the use of tax havens and CEO stock option “loopholes” would yield $8 billion, versus the estimated $250 million from the government’s controversial proposed changes to the small business tax regime. “He’s framed it in a kind of way to besmirch or attack entrepreneurs, farmers, and small businesses, and kind of muddied the waters around something incredibly important.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jagmeet-singh-on-his-path-to-the-prime-ministers-office/feed/4Jagmeet Singh and the rise of a new brand of Sikh politicshttp://www.macleans.ca/opinion/jagmeet-singh-and-the-rise-of-a-unique-brand-of-sikh-politics/
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/jagmeet-singh-and-the-rise-of-a-unique-brand-of-sikh-politics/#commentsThu, 05 Oct 2017 17:37:23 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=1066275Opinion: Why questions about the alleged mastermind of the Air India bombing ignore a new generation's politics—and reveal a double standard

It was one of the first phrases out of newly elected NDP leader Jagmeet Singh’s mouth when he mounted the stage to accept the NDP leadership last week. And the crowd, full of of Punjabi speakers, responded enthusiastically; they knew what it meant.

“How’s it going, fam?”

Much has been made of the fact that Singh is Canada’s first non-white federal leader. But to reduce his exceptionalism to race misses one of the most important aspects of his ascendence: his religion. Singh is the first Sikh to lead a federal party. And his unique brand of political Sikhism is central to his rise.

That fact became inescapable when the day after his election, the CBC’s Terry Milewski repeatedly asked Singh to denounce Sikhs who glorify Talwinder Singh Parmar, widely considered to be the mastermind behind the 1985 Air India bombings.

Singh strongly denounced the attacks and said that though he doesn’t know who is responsible, they should be brought to justice. But he didn’t say anything about Parmar.

For many viewers, it must have seemed like a strange interaction. Why was a federal party leader being asked to denounce people celebrating a long-dead terrorist? And why didn’t Singh just out-and-out condemn it?

For those of us who grew up in the shadow of the Khalistani movement—which sought an independent Sikh homeland in India—the only surprise was that these questions didn’t come sooner. Not because it’s appropriate for a journalist to demand a politician denounce the actions of people who are of the same faith; no one would dare ask Andrew Scheer, an observant Catholic, to denounce the IRA, for example. It’s a surprise because Singh has long been the embodiment of a new kind of Sikh politics that challenges the conventions of the past.

To fully grasp how unique Singh’s position in Canadian politics is, you have to go back to 1984. The Indian army had invaded the Golden Temple, killing Khalistani insurgents and civilians alike. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards. And in retaliation, thousands of Sikhs were killed in pogroms orchestrated by the government.

When Sikh terrorists bombed Air India Flight 182 the following year, the Sikh community in Canada was already fracturing. Many became more orthodox in their faith, with a small number embracing extremism. On the other side, a moderate, secular faction, which included future B.C. premier Ujjal Dosanjh, made their political careers by publicly battling radicalism.

Most Sikhs lived in between these two poles. Angry and grieving over what was being done to their kin in India, they were also uncomfortable with the growing power of radical elements at home.

In the years since, as the prospect of an independent Khalistan receded into the distance, a younger generation of politically engaged Sikhs became frustrated with the politics of the past. Elements of Sikh extremism remained—the unsolved murder of journalist Tara Singh Hayer 19 years ago is particularly bitter—but people of Singh’s generation came of age where those battles were less urgent.

Some gurdwaras—places of Sikh worship—continue to glorify terrorists like Parmar as martyrs, especially at Surrey’s Dashmesh Darbar gurdwara. But most young Sikh Canadians have different concerns—namely, racial and religious discrimination in Canada and the continuing persecution of Sikhs in India. They synthesize the religious fidelity of the orthodox Sikhs with the commitment to democratic institutions and progressivism embodied by the secular moderates.

For them, vigorously opposing the Indian government’s genocidal actions and speaking openly about the racism of Canadian society doesn’t require a flirtation with extremism. They find inspiration in Black Lives Matter and Idle No More, not terrorist groups like Babbar Khalsa or the International Sikh Youth Federation.

It’s the emergence of this new kind of Sikh politics that helps explain Singh’s rise. The NDP leader first decided to run for office when Kamal Nath, accused of leading genocidal mobs in 1984, was received by Ontario’s then-premier Dalton McGuinty in 2010. Singh’s been denied visas to visit India because he speaks out against the Indian government. In the Ontario legislature, he recently pushed through a motion to declare the 1984 massacres a genocide.

His campaign was staffed with like-minded young Sikhs and his outspokenness on the Indian government endeared him to older generations. But it’s for exactly those reasons that Singh will continue to be dogged by the old, divisive politics of Khalistani nationalism. Liberal Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, another turbaned Sikh, has similarly been branded an extremist by both Canadian Sikhs and Indian authorities.

Which brings us back to that strange CBC interview. Singh was asked to condemn Sikhs venerating Parmar not just because he’s a Sikh politician, but because he represents a kind of Sikh politics that Canadians like Milewski, who were enmeshed in the dramas of the Air India aftermath, are unfamiliar with. Milewski noted that Singh has long identified with the grievances of the Sikh community against India; to him, that alone is cause for suspicion.

There is no doubt that this is a double standard that a white, non-Sikh politician would never have to face. Patrick Brown, leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, is a personal friend of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But during his first interview on the CBC after becoming leader, he wasn’t asked to defend Modi over accusations that he was responsible for the massacre of thousands of Muslims in the 2002 Gujarat riots. In fact, Brown’s association with Modi has been played up in the media as an asset.

This isn’t to say that Singh’s answer wasn’t lacking. It should be easy for anyone to condemn the veneration of the worst mass murderer in Canadian history, though there’s no evidence in Singh’s words or actions that indicate he feels any differently. But when he does talk about the history of the conflict, it’s not Parmar that he brings up. He glorifies Jaswant Singh Khalra, a human rights activist who uncovered mass killings of Sikh youth by the Punjab police.

For his own good, Singh will have to find a way to talk about the injustices some Sikhs have perpetrated with the same passion and precision he uses when articulating injustices Sikhs have suffered. After all, unlike Brown, Singh won’t be given the benefit of the doubt. He will have to learn the same lesson that many other non-white leaders have learned before him: because of what he looks like, what he believes in, and who he is, he has to be twice as good.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/jagmeet-singh-and-the-rise-of-a-unique-brand-of-sikh-politics/feed/2It’s time for the NDP to end its ideological loyalty testhttp://www.macleans.ca/opinion/its-time-for-the-ndp-to-end-its-ideological-loyalty-test/
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/its-time-for-the-ndp-to-end-its-ideological-loyalty-test/#commentsMon, 02 Oct 2017 18:08:01 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=1064007Opinion: The NDP leadership campaign showed some members aren't as inclusive as they think. Will Jagmeet Singh's NDP unite, rather than divide?

Leadership contender Jagmeet Singh turns to supporters as he takes to the stage before speaking at the NDP’s Leadership Showcase in Hamilton, Ont. on Sunday September 17 , 2017. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young

Valerie Percival is an assistant professor at Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and a member of the New Democratic Party.

The long race to lead the federal New Democratic Party is over. Jagmeet Singh won on the first ballot, receiving 53.6 per cent of the vote, to become the first visible-minority leader of a federal party. Throughout the race, he worked to broaden the appeal of the party, signing up 47,000 new NDP members during the course of his campaign.

But despite serving loyally in the Ontario provincial arm of the NDP, Singh faced constant scrutiny of his commitment to NDP values in the open town-hall meetings—and in the anonymity of Facebook groups and comment pages. From his secularism to his three-piece suits, the NDP membership subjected Singh to the equivalent of an ideological frisking: he was accused of being a closeted Liberal, padding the party membership with fellow Sikhs, and being unable or unwilling to stand up against religion-based intolerance and defend secular values due to his own faith. Other candidates, meanwhile, did not experience the same degree of ideological interrogation.

Much has been said of the challenges Singh faces—raising money, improving party organization, ensuring up-to-date membership lists—but perhaps the biggest is party unity. Singh needs to ensure that the left wing of the party agrees with his efforts to “grow the tent.” And while the party will now enter a period of rebuilding and renewal, the race that led to his election has shown that the NDP also needs to do some self-reflection: Some members of the political left in Canada are not as progressive, tolerant and inclusive as they may think.

Finding the balance between the promotion of principles and the pursuit of power is never easy. The NDP members’ value-testing of Singh over the course of the leadership race in part reflects the charged political climate of the “age of Trump,” the infectiousness of the politics of fear and hate, and the fragility of our social consensus—that is, our shared understanding of our responsibilities to each other.

Many speak of the NDP as a social movement rather than a party, one that fights unflinchingly for social justice. The current state of our politics and our economy fuels the anger of some—but also the apathy of most—of the electorate. And in this context, NDP efforts to promote a shared sense of urgency for contemporary social and economic challenges are sorely needed.

Social movements conjure up images of protesters carrying placards, of sit-ins, of leaders holding megaphones encouraging their supporters to action. And such protest is essential for human progress. We depend on these movements to remind us of our social responsibilities, to educate and raise awareness of the experiences of others, when and where we are failing as a society, and to mobilize popular support for change. We join in protests and support these movements when we believe that their fight is our fight, and when we are moved to feel empathy and responsibility for the fate of others.

But in their drive to promote social change and mobilize their supporters, social movements can risk undermining this shared sense of responsibility. Their rhetoric often divides the world neatly into those who are with us and those who are against us. Analysis of complex political and socio-economic conditions is replaced by ideological sound bites—argument over facts, rhetoric over action. Walls are built, narrow perspectives perpetuated, and beliefs hardened.

Such appears to be the case with the NDP. Membership seems to require a loyalty test, rife with symbolism: what you wear, your education and your work history are all emblems of allegiance. In short, some members of the NDP do not always roll out the welcome mat for those perceived as outsiders.

As Singh moves forward as leader, he must encourage the party to embrace the best characteristics of social movements and leave the worst behind. Real change requires more than slogans and buzzwords. The NDP must better articulate a clear, realistic and inclusive vision for the world in which we want to live. Building a more just, equitable and sustainable Canada benefits everyone, but it is also not easy. The NDP must work to promote a shared sense of urgency and responsibility for that vision and articulate effective and efficient policies needed to achieve it.

It also means the NDP needs to break down walls, rather than build them. Evidence suggests that more open and inclusive groups are better problem-solvers. But being inclusive means the NDP needs to welcome, listen to, and empower others. The example of Charlie Angus, who gave the floor to members of the Indigenous community instead of speaking for them, is noteworthy. But equally important is the NDP listening to critics, ranging from those skeptical of the Leap Manifesto to entrepreneurs wanting to ensure that their contributions to the economy are welcome and valued.

And inherent in the NDP’s message and actions should be the values of understanding, compassion, tolerance and a belief in redemption. Public health research shows that people can recognize and change damaging behaviours. But the people that Hillary Clinton referred to as Donald Trump’s “basket of deplorables” were not moved to self-reflection by her derision. Vilifying and shaming individuals and groups does not provide incentive for change; instead, it stigmatizes.

Parties of the centre follow social consensus—they “stick their finger in the wind” to test for politically expedient policies. At its best, the NDP works to build a social consensus, one that enables the development and implementation of progressive policies. But building a social consensus means bringing more people into the tent, not shrinking it. Working pragmatically with others does not mean giving up on progressive principles—it provides the possibility of realizing them.

In our charged political environment, the NDP has a critical role to promote and enable social justice—but only if Singh and the entire party acts as a unifying, rather than a dividing, force in Canadian politics.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/its-time-for-the-ndp-to-end-its-ideological-loyalty-test/feed/1Jagmeet Singh and the newest new NDPhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jagmeet-singh-and-the-newest-new-ndp/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jagmeet-singh-and-the-newest-new-ndp/#commentsSun, 01 Oct 2017 21:51:58 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=1064575Paul Wells: The NDP was born from the hope that things can change and in Jagmeet Singh it has picked the young, optimistic outsider

Jagmeet Singh, centre right, sits with his mother Harmeet Kaur, centre left, father Jagtaran Singh, left, and campaign manager Michal Hay, right, as it’s announced he has won the first ballot in the NDP leadership race to be elected the leader of the federal New Democrats in Toronto on Sunday, Oct. 1, 2017. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young

Suspense is overrated anyway. Jagmeet Singh’s first-ballot thumping of his opponents in the NDP leadership contest makes big history: in the 150th anniversary year of Confederation, a major political party has finally broken the country’s uninterrupted string of white faces at the head of national parties. The scale of Singh’s victory makes him, at least for several months to come, the uncontested and comfortable leader of his party, in contrast to the 12 consecutive ballots in the Conservative race that had Andrew Scheer in second place before Scheer finally eked out a win. And Singh’s victory completes the inversion of the youth-vs.-experience argument that dominated the 2015 election campaign.

A bit about that last part first. In December 2013 I ran into Justin Trudeau at an Ottawa movie theatre. He was taking the kids to see Frozen, but he paused to talk shop at the concession stand. He was pleased with the news that Stephen Harper had handpicked a former communications director, Dimitri Soudas, to be the Conservative Party’s executive director. It was a sign Harper would stick around until the 2015 election. Trudeau liked the contrast: “I need ‘old,’ ” he said.

Well, now he has it: Born on Christmas Day 1971, in Singh and Scheer he’ll face two children of 1979 in the next election, along with whoever will then be leading the Green Party (one suspects it’ll be the same person who always does). Trudeau cannot run 2019 as a repeat of 2015. The erstwhile avatar of youth, change, optimism, style and an ecstatic embrace of diversity is now outbid on most of those attributes by Singh. As for the last element of his 2015 appeal, a tendency to smirk when his elders lectured him on arithmetic, that’s not wearing well either.

It’s no mystery why some of the happiest spectators to the Singh upset were Conservatives. Conservatives lose when the Liberals capture most of the left-of-centre vote. (They would lose if the NDP did the same, but with the partial exception of 2011, it’s never happened.) Justin Trudeau picked up more NDP support in 2015 than Conservative support, and everything he does suggests he’s been planning to crowd the NDP on his way to re-election.

WATCH: Jagmeet Singh speaks about victory

That path is now—well, not definitively blocked, but complicated. Liberals I talk to aren’t terrified of Singh, but they don’t write him off either. Every knock against Singh for youth or inexperience is one that would have applied to Justin Trudeau, not long ago. The two even share a strength: conspicuous organizational muscle. Even though he wasn’t a candidate, Singh was billed as the guarantor of federal NDP strength in the Brampton region in the early days of the 2015 election. That didn’t pan out. Navdeep Bains and several of his young protégés swept all those ridings. All hands are well aware their rematch will be one of the central dramas of the next election, and the way Singh just swept the leadership suggests he has been working on his chops.

The NDP more broadly has had a weird couple of years. The party cashiered Tom Mulcair on the floor of its Edmonton convention last year, and voted to “study” the Leap manifesto, a decision to which it devoted no perceptible follow-through. The party’s lone Quebec leadership candidate, Guy Caron, was endorsed by a former leader, Alexa McDonough, and by Jack Layton’s best strategist, Brian Topp; for all that, Caron came a distant fourth in a four-candidate field. One Quebec MP has already threatened to quit the caucus if Singh became leader, and there’s conspicuous nervousness over the prospects of a Singh-led NDP in a province where it’s common to debate religious headgear. Singh is clearly eager for the test and confident of his chances. Probably it’ll be healthier for the NDP to confront these stereotypes than to try to mollify them.

One final quirk of this swiftly aging, ever-New Democratic Party. It is becoming remarkable how often the party reaches outside its parliamentary caucus for renewed leadership. Tommy Douglas was still in Saskatchewan provincial politics when the he became leader of the newly-christened NDP in 1962. Audrey McLaughlin had been an MP for barely two years when she became the party’s leader in 1989. Alexa McDonough was not an MP when she won. Nor was Jack Layton. Tom Mulcair had more parliamentary experience, on the day he became leader, than his three most recent predecessors combined. The experience, like that of Caron, Charlie Angus and Niki Ashton, seems to have disappointed New Democrats more than it impressed them.

The NDP was born from the hope that things can change, not at the edges but fundamentally and in a rush, and whenever it has been tested it has fallen back on that hope. The party knew Jagmeet Singh less well than any of the candidates he beat, but it is used to leaps of faith. One day one will pay off.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jagmeet-singh-and-the-newest-new-ndp/feed/16Five key takeaways from Jagmeet Singh’s NDP leadership speechhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/five-key-things-jagmeet-singh-said-on-winning-the-ndp-leadership/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/five-key-things-jagmeet-singh-said-on-winning-the-ndp-leadership/#commentsSun, 01 Oct 2017 21:36:44 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=1064593The new NDP leader hinted at his attack plan against Trudeau, and talked about his pitch to Quebecers, and getting by in these supposedly tough times

Jagmeet Singh’s acceptance speech after he won the NDP leadership today was more about spectacle than specifics, performance than policy. Singh eschewed a podium, as usual, opting for a hand-held mic. The stage behind him thronged with his supporters. His three-piece suit didn’t disappoint those attuned to his celebrated fashion sense.

But there was substance of a sort there, too, for those who knew what to listen for. A few themes and messages stood out. Singh regards his own leadership campaign as the best cause New Democrats have for optimism about the party’s chances in the 2019 federal election. He accepts the NDP conventional wisdom on the big policy issues. And his strategy relies on Canadians feeling a little down.

Here’s how he put those points across in Toronto today, after vanquishing three NDP MPs on the first ballot to take over the federal party from Tom Mulcair:

• In the late stages of the leadership race, Singh was highlighting two numbers. He recruited about 47,000 new members to the party, and 25,000 of them live in the Toronto area, where the party was wiped out in the 2015 election. That’s what he was reminding party members of today when he said, “Look at what we’ve been able to accomplish in a few short months. Now imagine what we can build together, all of us together, in two years.” He is promising, above all else, urban and suburban organizing acumen.

• As an Ontario NDP MPP with no established network in the federal party, Singh played it safe by remaining on the same page as MPs Charlie Angus, Niki Ashton and Guy Caron on what policies matter most. And he dutifully checked them all off today. “Inequality, especially income inequality, pay equity and housing affordability—we have to tackle these issues—climate change, reconciliation, and electoral reform.” That’s not even the sketch of a platform. It’s a list of headings for platform chapters.

• The most uncomfortable questions raised in the leadership race were about whether or not Quebec voters would warm to an observant Sikh as NDP leader. Singh’s appeal to Quebec draws from his life story. “My parents grew up in a country that did not respect the rights of minorities… I learned from them the link between language and culture. I discovered that francophones in Canada, and particularly Quebecers, have faced similar pressures with their language and with their identity.” It will be fascinating to see how that appeal to bitter shared experience ultimately goes over.

• Anxiety over what’s often called “precarious employment”—part-time, contract, or gig-economy jobs—is seen by many NDP strategists as the key to reaching young voters. Singh spoke of his own family’s experience of insecure work, implying that Justin Trudeau, who grew up rich, doesn’t get it. “Maybe if you look at employment as a hobby, you can just get used to unstable work,” he said again today. “But if your work means the difference between putting food on the table or a roof over the head of your family, then job insecurity is unacceptable.”

• An assumption that was often mentioned by all the candidates in the NDP race was that Canadians are now suffering through hard times. By most indicators, though, the economy is on a roll. Still, Singh can’t allow that notion room to breathe. “At a time when people are feeling so despondent, when there’s a lack of hope, when it feels like things will only get worse before they get better, Canadians must stand united and champion a politics of courage to fight the politics of fear, a politics of love to fight the growing politics of division.”

It almost sounds like he’s getting ready to run against Donald Trump. Whatever Trudeau’s shortcomings, if Singh hopes to persuade centre-left Canadian voters that this Prime Minister is practicing the “politics of division,” he’s setting himself a daunting challenge.

The first time I met Jagmeet Singh in the summer of 2011, racial politics was unspoken in the conversation but present regardless. At the time, Singh and his campaign team were walking through the Toronto Caribbean Carnival, passing out t-shirts. Singh was running in Bramalea-Gore-Malton, which was one of the areas I’d lived as a child, and where some of my family members still call home. I took a t-shirt and wished him luck on his run, adding that getting elected in that riding would be light work. I think about that exchange every so often, and I’m ashamed at my comment. The subtext, of course, was that a young and handsome turban-wearing Sikh would have no problem getting elected in the same riding that made Gurbax Malhi the first such candidate in the western world to do so.

The second time I met Jagmeet Singh, racial politics were at the crux of a community consultation on carding (a fittingly polite and bureaucratic Canadian spin on racial profiling) by Toronto Police. Singh, by then an elected MPP, attended the meeting to add his voice to the chorus of community members who demanded that the practice be abolished province-wide. Not long before, Singh tweeted and spoke about his personal experiences being profiled by police in Toronto and Windsor, saying the experiences made him feel “like I just didn’t belong.”

The third time we were in the same room, at his campaign launch in Brampton, he was confronted by a man in a Panama Hat who had some bizarre questions about Sharia law. I bring all of this up because it seems that wherever Jagmeet Singh goes, the odious fog of Canadian race politics, billowing out of the yawning pits of passive-aggressive antipathy, is sure to follow. Last week, it bookended his campaign when Jennifer Bush (a woman aligned with white nationalist organization Rise Canada) accosted Singh at a campaign event, asking him “When is your Sharia going to end? We know you’re in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood.” Singh, for his part, remained poised and unflappable. Bush’s approach, though, wrapped in the gauche cloak of overt racism, brought her viral infamy and simultaneously generated widespread sympathy for Singh.

After the encounter, several publications described his response as “classy” and “gracious.” VICE tweeted the story about the encounter, stating “This is how you deal with a racist heckler.” And Andrew Coyne was, of course, Andrew Coyne, wondering why Singh didn’t logic-bomb Bush into embarrassment by stating he is not a Muslim. But Jennifer Bush, a woman who quite obviously has no political views worth taking seriously, makes for a convenient scapegoat. In Canada, racialization is at its most acceptable when it comes in the form of polite questions uttered by serious thinkers. And for several months, those serious thinkers busied themselves with this well-dressed and beturbaned curiosity.

There was, for example, the fretting over the complicated nature of Singh’s “Québec Problem;” the possibility that Quebec voters, who helped sweep the NDP into opposition status in the 2011 federal election, would abandon the party if Singh were chosen to lead it. There have been columns speaking of Singh’s campaign as “insurgent,” as if a politician who’s been name-checked and profiled for years by the likes of Toronto Life and GQ magazine (in a way that no Canadian politician alive, save for Justin Trudeau, could possibly relate) was overstepping his place by running for party leader. And then there was the question by Jesse Brady, co-campaign manager to NDP leadership contender Charlie Angus, as to whether Singh really managed to sign up 47,000 new NDP members.

Those questions, always posed in the innocuous voice of white curiosity with nonwhite achievement, should be familiar to anyone who followed Barack Obama’s 2008 Democratic primary campaign. The question as to whether he could be accepted by working-class white voters. The comments about his popularity being carried by his natty appearance and articulate speech, rather than his community and legislative accomplishments. The “either I won, or you cheated” narrative carriedby bitter supporters of Hillary Clinton, a narrative that threatened to fracture the party itself until Hillary and Bill managed to mend party ties at the Democratic convention. Right up until Barack Obama swore the oath of office, there was the sense that something was utterly wrong here, that his candidacy upset the natural order of things, and that the country was not yet ready for him.

This is not to say that Jagmeet Singh is Obama’s Sikh analogue north of the border, but the script for racialization has always made for thin reading. There is nothing complicated about the suggestion that Quebecers are not comfortable with his “religiosity,” there’s simply the belief that white Quebecers are too racist and xenophobic to support the NDP if it elects a brown-skinned leader who will not placate their bigotry. There’s no “insurgent” campaign at work to upset the established order of the party, there’s simply a popular candidate who, by all appearances, is poised to demonstrate why Canadians of colour not only deserve a seat at the table, but can pull up a chair at its head. And whether or not Singh has indeed signed up enough members to win the leadership in the first round of balloting, his campaign has so far succeeded at a level that most party leadership candidates could only dream of.

Yet taken as a whole, the response to his campaign from the political class seems to be that Singh should hang back in Brampton until the rest of the country—a country which prides itself on not being as despicably racist as America—has evolved enough to accept him. At a time when white nationalists have crawled out of the dirt to murder people in the streets, shoot up and firebomb mosques, and taint the office of the U.S. president, this is not a good look. Regardless of the NDP convention outcome, Jagmeet Singh has, so far, made his candidacy look like light work. But the way he handled Jennifer Bush wasn’t the true demonstration of his class and grace. It’s the way he’s handled Canada’s serious thinkers, who can’t help but find polite ways to explain why he doesn’t belong.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/get-real-jagmeet-singh-has-been-dealing-with-racist-hecklers-for-months/feed/21NDP membership triples since Marchhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ndp-membership-triples-since-march/
Tue, 29 Aug 2017 17:39:01 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=1056185NDP says it has more than 124,000 card-carrying members eligible to vote for the next leader

The four announced contenders in the federal NDP Ottawa leadership contest, Guy Caron, Charlie Angus, Niki Ashton and Peter Julian square off at the initial debate of the race in Ottawa on Mar. 12, 2017. (Andrew Meade)

OTTAWA – Despite the fact it hasn’t exactly dominated headlines, the federal New Democrat leadership race helped the third-place party more than triple its membership ranks since March, numbers released Tuesday suggest.

The party said it now has more than 124,000 members — 32,000 of them in B.C. — who will be eligible to choose from among the four candidates who are vying to replace Tom Mulcair as the party’s federal leader.

The overall figure represents a big boost for the New Democrats, who had just 41,000 members at the end of March.

Party president Marit Stiles cited the numbers as evidence of renewed public enthusiasm towards the NDP.

“The party and the four candidates continue to make tremendous efforts to mobilize and engage supporters and the results are starting to show,” Stiles said in a statement.

“We’re confident this momentum will continue to grow as we launch our new leader in October.”

Earning the support of members will be a critical element of success for the leadership candidates — Ontario MP Charlie Angus; Jagmeet Singh, a member of the Ontario legislature; Manitoba MP Niki Ashton; and Quebec MP Guy Caron.

Earlier Tuesday, the United Food and Commercial Workers union declared its support for Singh.

Union national president Paul Meinema said Singh is the candidate who best represents the interests of his members, adding he will help expand the party “to new heights with a new generation.”

“His continued dedication to social justice, and his drive to ensure the betterment of working Canadians are a part of the qualities that gave Jagmeet the advantage in the national council’s deliberations,” Meinema said.

Voting for the next NDP leader begins Sept. 18, shortly after the final leadership debate Sept. 10 in Vancouver.

The candidates are also set to deliver their final pitch to members at a so-called “showcase” Sept. 17 in Hamilton.

All party members are eligible to vote, either online or by mail. Candidates must win at least 50 per cent of the votes plus one to be declared the winner.

]]>How Jagmeet Singh hopes to win over the next generation of NDP votershttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/how-jagmeet-singh-hopes-to-win-over-the-next-generation-of-ndp-voters/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/how-jagmeet-singh-hopes-to-win-over-the-next-generation-of-ndp-voters/#commentsWed, 16 Aug 2017 10:00:21 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=1050855The Ontario New Democrat MPP and his circle of young Sikh activists are trying to build a national movement and win the NDP leadership

The man in the panama hat was pointing menacingly at Jagmeet Singh—raising his finger dramatically and curling it over the TV cameras and the heads of the gathered reporters. Singh, standing there, was elegantly dressed as always, in a fitted grey suit, black tie and orange turban. But he looked nervous.

He had just, using a teleprompter, finished giving perhaps the most important speech of his life: he was running, he told the crowd at the Bombay Palace restaurant in suburban Brampton, Ont., for the leadership of the federal NDP. Now, in the middle of his first presser as a national contender, with all eyes on him, a man in a panama hat was threatening to make a scene.

“I’ll give you all the time you need!” the man was telling Singh’s staff—inexplicably—as he shrugged off their pleas for calm.

Meanwhile, the reporters’ queries—about the ethics of running at the federal level while Singh, an MPP, retains his seat in the Ontario legislature, for example—seemed to leave Singh nonplussed.

Already the man in the hat was slipping through the crowd to reach him—he had something to tell Singh, to tell everybody! Just then, Nader Mohamed, Singh’s formidable-looking digital director, wearing a beautiful suit and a man bun, with his beard impeccably manicured, stepped nimbly into the scrum to head the man off.

Willy Blomme, a former Jack Layton speechwriter and one of Singh’s campaign principals, had spotted the trouble. So had Amneet Singh, an amiable media handler with the campaign, who with an uncharacteristically panicked expression on his face was swirling his index finger in a wrap-up gesture.

Blomme grabbed the candidate and whisked him from the room. Later, as the crowd thinned, the man in the hat would tell anyone who’d listen he was not going to let Singh bring sharia law to Canada.

It was Singh’s big moment and it was cut short by ill-informed paranoia about his faith. Sharia is canonical Islamic law; Singh is a baptized Sikh who, in the parlance of his community, “wears the five Ks”: unshorn hair (kesh), steel bracelet (kara), a ceremonial sword (kirpan) and wooden comb (kanga), and special undergarments (kachhehra).

For Singh, the man in the hat was nothing new: in key ways, his visibility has defined his life and politics, especially since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the tumultuous aftermath of which galvanized a whole cohort of second-generation Canadians, Singh among them.

At 38, he is already a seasoned politician, with a reputation for defying significant odds. In 2011, he became the first New Democrat to win a seat at any level of government in suburban Peel region, west of Toronto, and the first turban-wearing Sikh to sit in Queen’s Park. Under leader Andrea Horwath, he rose through the party ranks, becoming her deputy (a role he’s set aside for this campaign).

The federal leadership bid sees him running into similarly brisk headwinds: he’s received unpromising numbers in early opinion polls. Known for his bespoke suits and fashion spreads in GQ, and for his exuberant presence on youth-oriented social media platforms, he at times appears to flirt with dandyism and frivolity. Some media coverage has been fawning (Clement Nocos, the freelance writer who conducted the Q & A that ran alongside the GQ spread, now works on Singh’s campaign). Critics say he is all glamour and little substance, a pretender in a field of more experienced national operators.

Yet Singh has racked up more endorsements than his rivals, and according to the latest quarterly fundraising report from Elections Canada, he’s raised more money than all his opponents combined. Perhaps most importantly, he has street cred with grassroots New Democrats—something he pulls off with help from a tight circle of friends who have little experience in federal politics, but an impressive track record as activists taking on left-wing causes.

As young adults who came of age in the post-9/11 period, Singh and his trusted advisers helped created a Sikh renaissance in Ontario that they are now attempting to leverage into a much broader left-wing political movement. “I think, in a really disruptive way,” he says, “a bearded, turbaned guy is going to be able to win over all of Canada.”

Jagmeet Singh, Federal NDP leader candidate, and Ontario NDP provincial MPP of Bramalea-Gore-Malton, works out at the South Fletcher’s Sportsplex in Bramtpon, Ontario, Canada. June 2, 2017. (Photograph by Mark Blinch)

Singh’s chosen medium is his own body. He combines his elegant attire with a penchant for bicycles—he owns several, including a foldable Brompton in British racing green—which he clearly enjoys riding while dressed to the nines.

Normally he favours three-piece suits, but for an interview with Maclean’s, at a Mississauga strip mall not far from where he shares a house with his parents and brother, he rolled up on his Brompton in a pink turban, white T-shirt, chinos and tan-coloured Sabahs, a brand of handmade Turkish shoe. His kirpan was slung over his shoulder and he was talking on his cellphone as he pedalled. He’d called ahead to confirm there’d be no photographer and that he could dress casually.

In interviews, Singh frequently refers to a conclusion he says he came to growing up: “If people are going to stare at me anyways, I might as well give them something to look at.” Even when he worked as a criminal lawyer, a legal niche known for nattiness, Singh stood out. For many years, he did not know this was a long-time strategy for Sikh men.

Over tea and a salad, Singh calls up on his phone a turn-of-the century photograph of three turbaned men strolling through Vancouver wearing three-piece suits. The image dates from around 1908, when Vancouver’s Khalsa Diwan Society instructed newly arrived Sikh men to wear “three-piece suits with nicely tied turbans” and to carry umbrellas and pocket watches. “The appearance of being sharp,” says Singh, “well-dressed—to convey that confidence—was a community mandate. I thought I came up with it on my own, but there seems to be a tradition for it.”

Singh grew up in working-class cities: St. John’s, where his father trained as a psychiatrist, and Windsor, Ont. At school, his long hair and dark skin led to frequent scraps with other boys, he says: “They would come up and punch me or try to pull my hair.” Singh took up martial arts, a lifelong passion. Soon, to rescue him from the distraction of fisticuffs, his father sent him to the elite Detroit Country Day School in Beverly Hills, Mich.

At Western University, where he studied biology, Singh felt that he’d “turned the corner” on the challenges of dealing with racism: “It was a space where people were more exposed to different things; there was a certain open-mindedness in the halls of learning.” It didn’t last.

He was at Western when the 9/11 attacks unleashed a newly virulent form of prejudice across North America. Aimed at Muslims, the violence wasn’t discerning. One of the earliest fatalities was Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh from Punjab who’d lived in the United States for more than 10 years and was shot to death in Arizona. “I stand for America all the way,” the shooter screamed at police.

Says Singh: “9/11 resulted in a whole new wave of extreme racism and hatred. People driving by yelling ‘Osama,’ physical confrontations. I was able to stand up for myself. But it created a lot of tension, a lot of negativity. People would be afraid—literally—and walk away in fear.”

The eldest of three siblings—he has a brother, Gurratan, and sister, Manjot—Singh has always played the role of big brother, not just within his family, but within a group of southern Ontario Sikhs. “He’s not just my older brother,” says Gurratan, 33. It was Singh who taught Gurratan’s high school friend Amneet—now his PR man—how to tie a turban. After 9/11, Singh was advising his honorary siblings about how to carry themselves as Sikhs at a time when their visibility made them targets of nearly unprecedented rage.

Comedian Jasmeet Singh, 27, known as “Jus Reign,” first met Singh as a kid in Guelph, Ont., where rumours had circulated that he was Osama bin Laden’s nephew. “Jagmeet is one of the first dudes I ever saw with a turban and beard who was so confident—I’d never seen that level of confidence in a Sikh man in the post-9/11 world. There were a lot of people giving up, not wanting to embrace their roots, their heritage. Jagmeet took who he was and wore that every single day.”

Singh has Jack Layton’s hail-fellow-well-met gift with crowds, updated to the millennial vernacular: “How’s it going, brother!” “I’m pumped!” “LOOK AT THAT BEARD RIGHT HERE!” he will tell people during micro-encounters—grabbing shoulders at a union event in Toronto, say, or in St. John’s after an all-candidates debate. He and Gurratan, who’s played an important role in his campaigns, favour the bro-shake: hands clasped in arm-wrestling fashion, then a shoulder bump.

In parallel to the enthusiasm around Singh’s leadership bid runs the question of whether Canadian voters are ready for him. It’s a question that’s often put quietly, or placed safely in the context of Quebec, where outward displays of religious affiliation in politics are often frowned upon (but which, due to this tendency, becomes an easy scapegoat for similar anxieties that exist across the country).

The question is an open one also in the federal NDP. His opponents in the contest to replace Tom Mulcair—Charlie Angus, Niki Ashton and Guy Caron—each have years of federal experience. Singh began with the backing of zero members of the federal caucus (a half a dozen MPs have since endorsed him, including Quebec’s Hélène Laverdière). For some, this echoes the trajectory of Layton’s leadership run in 2003, when he leapt from Toronto city council to the national stage. “I think Singh is trying to position himself as the next Jack Layton—the dynamic outsider who offers a big boost to the national party,” says Ryerson University politics professor Myer Siemiatycki.

Others aren’t so sure. There is a constituency of New Democrats who see Singh as all flash, and as a johnny-come-lately. A recent Mainstreet Research poll of NDP members found him trailing Angus and Ashton badly, with just 7.5 per cent support. (The rumpled Angus led with 23 per cent.)

At an all-candidates debate in June hosted by the United Steelworkers labour union in downtown Toronto, Ashton, a Manitoba MP, owned the room and received one of the night’s most enthusiastic responses, name-checking Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders. Singh, meanwhile, received tepid reactions. Awkwardly, it was often only the small corner of the hall where his team sat that applauded him.

The NDP lost the city of Toronto in the last election, edged out by the resurgent Grits. Singh’s only road to winning this race is selling new memberships; his supporters know it and see the NDP’s future in similar terms. “Everybody wants this party to be led by an old white guy named Sanders or Corbyn,” says one Singh supporter, a person of colour. “It’s the tale of two NDPs. One party is old downtown support and labour. Then there’s a new NDP that’s trying to grow the party in all directions.” He added: “Every party has its old-stock Canadians.”

In Singh’s telling, contained within the Sikh religion is a progressive philosophy able to incorporate within itself a panoply of leftish political commitments: to LGBTQ rights, environmental stewardship, indigenous reconciliation, diversity.

“When I wear the turban,” he says, “I wear it as a mark of honour, that I stand for all these progressive social-justice things. It’s my way of telegraphing that to the world. It’s an act of rebellion.” That pattern—of combining the themes of Sikhism, and the strategies of Sikh youth activism, with those of the NDP, has become Singh’s MO.

Ontario deputy NDP leader Jagmeet Singh launches his bid for the federal NDP leadership in Brampton, Ont., on Monday, May 15, 2017. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette

Sikh political engagement is a Canadian reality. Sikhs comprise less than two per cent of the population, yet Justin Trudeau appointed four to Cabinet in 2015; Punjabi is the third-most-spoken language in the House of Commons.

Central to Sikhism, says Zabeen Khamisa, a doctoral candidate in religious studies at the University of Waterloo, is “this idea that your political activism, your engagement in this world, is infused with your spirituality.” This tenet is called miri piri, after the two swords worn by the 17th century Guru Hargobind, one representing his spiritual calling, the other his worldly fight against injustice.

By the late aughts, Singh, a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School, was practising criminal law, first at Pinkofskys, a legal-aid firm known for its aggressive tactics, then on his own in Mississauga, Ont. On the side he was doing pro bono work for grassroots groups involved in anti-poverty campaigns and immigrant and refugee rights, including workshops he conducted on the rights of protesters.

One of these groups was the Sikh Activist Network, formed by Singh’s brother, Gurratan, and his long-time friend Amneet a decade ago, while they were students, and which they called “a previously underground network . . . of Sikh activists working for social justice while resisting the poisonous exploitative and murderous powers of neo-imperialism.” In ways that no one could have foreseen, and despite the shopworn rhetoric, this group would become the bedrock of Singh’s political career.

As the network evolved, Gurratan and Amneet (both of whom went on to graduate from law school) took to describing it as an organization committed to changing media stereotypes about Sikhs and encouraging spirituality via the arts. It quickly became a testing ground for young, socially conscious Sikh artists—among them the hip-hop performer Humble the Poet, the spoken-word poet Rupi Kaur and Jasmeet Singh (Singh’s young mentee from Guelph), known professionally as Jus Reign.

One historical episode the group became focused on was an outbreak of anti-Sikh violence in 1984, when the assassination of Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi by her two Sikh bodyguards, aggrieved over the military storming of a holy Sikh shrine in Punjab earlier that year, sparked riots in which more than 3,000 Sikhs were killed. In 2009, to commemorate the 25th anniversary of that crisis, Singh and his Sikh Activist Network associates mounted the first “When Lions Roar” event, billing it as “a night of hip hop, poetry and performances.”

Over the next several years, these gatherings mixed political seminars with Sikh hip-hop shows that drew thousands of young people. This and other campaigns also became laboratories for an approach to political marketing that Singh continues to use to this day, and that others have turned into arts and entertainment careers. “It’s a renaissance period for the Sikh community,” says Singh. “The first wave of immigrants came to survive. Now you’re seeing the next generation saying, ‘Let’s flourish.’ ”

With their low-budget, often hilarious and anarchic social media presences, members of this cohort have generated millions of hits, and have achieved fame, even wealth. Their work is frequently subversive, resembling a kind of culture jamming, in which media is scrambled and used against itself to critique the status quo. Members of this cohort have generated millions of social media hits, and have achieved fame, even wealth. Jus Reign today makes his living off YouTube, with 850,000 subscribers, and specializes in slyly funny, frenetic, dark commentaries about life as a visible minority in North America. In one, a non-Sikh character tells him: “It’s going to start snowing soon, do you even know what that is? Snow, buddy—not sand!” Lilly Singh, known as IISuperwomanII, who was born in the Toronto suburb of Scarborough, ranked third last year on the Forbes list of top YouTube earners, with revenues of $7.5 million. She now has a home in an affluent part of L.A., an international book deal, and a role in the upcoming HBO adaptation of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. In her early videos she demonstrated how to tie a turban, or caricatured her parents; today she skewers the alt-right critics who write her hate mail (“A Geography Class for Racist People,” posted to YouTube in June, has received 5.7 million views). Rupi Kaur, 24, who ﬁrst publicly performed her poetry on a “When Lions Roar” stage, self-published her debut collection, Milk and Honey, in 2014; it became a New York Times bestseller last year. Kaur developed a following by posting her short, simple poems, about feminism and other issues on Tumblr, a micro-blogging site, and Instagram. Kaur’s following exploded after Instagram censored a photograph of the poet in bed with her sheets stained with menstrual blood, a decision that sparked international controversy and caused many to rally around Kaur.

“These people were involved in the activist network; now they’ve grown up, they share a vision and they’re making it happen,” says Khamisa. “Everything they do still addresses social issues, some sort of political idea.” Some have even gone into politics.

For Singh and the Sikh Activist Network, the political turning point came in the spring of 2010, when Kamal Nath, at the time India’s minister for road transport and highways, arrived in Toronto to meet then-Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty. Many Sikhs view Nath as a war criminal for his alleged role in organizing the 1984 riots.

Gurratan and Amneet helped mount a protest around the visit, and reached out to politicians to drum up opposition. Jack Layton was among the few to speak out forcefully against Nath, referring to the “many Indo-Canadians … especially hurt by the presence in Canada of a man who allegedly organized anti-Sikh pogroms.”

Amneet and Gurratan decided they needed a champion in government. When Amneet proposed Jagmeet, Gurratan was initially skeptical. Singh says he wasn’t keen, either—he is in some ways an uncomplicated guy, a fan of comic books and fantasy novels, who likes to watch his diet (he eschews eggs and most other animal products), and to work out at the gym. But Gurratan and Amneet argued that no one was better positioned to advance their agenda. They set their sights on the federal riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton. No New Democrat had ever won in the region, and there was skepticism from party brass in Toronto. Singh, then in his early 30s, was the oldest person on the team; none of them had experience in electoral politics.

One early decision involved commissioning Jus Reign to do the campaign videos. In one, the comedian sits down to interview Singh but quickly nods off, precipitating a dream sequence in which Jus Reign’s head and smiling face are inserted into promotional images from the all-white ’80s and ’90s sitcom Full House.

The videos represented Singh the politician’s first foray into social media. Today, beyond his suits, he is perhaps best known for his presence on Snapchat: dancing with the Maritime Bhangra Group in Halifax, celebrating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in Montreal—“Les vibes sont très fort ici!”—or “kicking it with my Somali sisters!” Social media allows his tightly scripted team to stay in control of the message, and appeals to the volunteer youth selling memberships and manning the phones.

A clever online campaign video aimed ostensibly at endearing Singh to NDP supporters in Quebec, and which shows him donning a turban while listening to a cassette of the ’90s francophone singer Roch Voisine—“I know it’s cheese,” he says in French—tears a page directly from the Sikh Activist Network playbook. One NDP establishment type told Maclean’s its intended audience was actually Anglophone New Democrats worried about how Singh will go over in Quebec.

Singh lost the race by a hair. He was never supposed to get that close. Months later, he won in the provincial elections. As an MPP, he’s advocated for fair auto insurance and against precarious work. Last year, he introduced a motion to label the 1984 anti-Sikh riots a genocide (he’s been denied a visa to India because of similar rhetoric). That failed, but a similar motion, brought by a Liberal this year, did not. Exactly according to plan, the Sikh Activist Network had an established force at Queen’s Park.

Singh has remained stubbornly true to his activist roots. One NDP insider says she knows of seasoned establishment New Democrats who’ve offered to help him win; he’s said to have rebuffed them, opting instead to staff his team with young people, most with activist backgrounds. “We’ll take help from anyone,” he says. “But I think politics is often too exclusive. There’s only a certain clique that gets involved. I wanted to build a bigger, more inclusive movement.”

Not everyone’s a fan. Jagdish Grewal, editor of Brampton’s Canadian Punjabi Post, says Singh has exhibited an inability to execute at Queen’s Park, and behaves in an ostentatious manner. “When he rides his bike, he wears almost $3,000-$4,000 worth of clothes,” he says. “Jack Layton wore the simple shirt and jeans!” Grewal, a Tory candidate during the 2015 elections, was dumped by that party after the surfacing of an old editorial he’d written suggesting gay people could be made straight through therapy.

The Stephen Harper Tories invested heavily in bringing new Canadians on side, and helped create an orthodoxy that sees them as natural Conservatives, particularly on social issues. Says one progressive Muslim Singh supporter: “People will always question how progressive you are if you’re a person of faith, especially from immigrant communities.” Singh represents a different category of voter: upwardly mobile, university-educated, second-generation Canadians who don’t have a natural political home and want one. Key to Singh’s strategy is the way he highlights his own difference and plugs it into broader concerns. He and his team have managed to expand his Sikh activism to create the basis of a broader coalition—of South Asian cabbies, black anti-carding activists, downtown Toronto hipsters, Sikh Motorcycle Club of Ontario members in leather vests.

Neesha Rao, 30, attending Singh’s office launch in Malton, a neighbourhood of Mississauga, had just bought an NDP membership. She’d previously joined the Conservative party ahead of its leadership race, to vote for Michael Chong. “Left and right doesn’t work anymore,” says Rao, who practises family law.

Later, at an event one morning at the Muslim Welfare Centre in Mississauga, Singh joined volunteers gathered to build halal food baskets for needy families. “I’m so excited—I was like, ‘I hope he’s joining our team!’ ” said one woman wearing a hijab when Singh arrived. “Can we have a group picture!?”

Mohammed Hashim, a senior organizer with the Toronto and York Region Labour Council and an early supporter of Singh’s, stood back and watched. “Imagine him beside Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer,” he said. “What would that mean to my kid? What would it mean for waves and waves of immigrants? It’s a story too powerful for the NDP and Canada to deny.”

A few minutes later, Hina Mirza, 38, the woman in the hijab, stood cheering Singh and her fellow volunteers on—many were her teammates in the Sisterhood Softball club in Toronto’s western suburbs, where she’s a psychotherapist and a family and marriage counselor. She was still excited. “He represents what Canada stands for,” Mirza said of Singh. “He represents our generation.

Ontario deputy NDP leader Jagmeet Singh launches his bid for the federal NDP leadership in Brampton, Ont., on Monday, May 15, 2017. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette

The second most-popular story on Le Devoir‘s website as I write this is about mounting anxiety in the Quebec wing of the NDP over Jagmeet Singh’s candidacy for the party’s leadership. “Several activists are panicking” at the thought, the story says.

The problem? Singh, a practicing Sikh, wears a turban and kirpan. “To have a leader who’d wear ostentatious signs” of his religious affiliation, “we are not ready,” Pierre Dionne Labelle, who was an NDP MP from 2011 to 2015, says on the record. “Would I be at ease with that? I don’t think so.”

This is the first time Le Devoir has found a New Democrat willing to speak on the record about concerns over Singh’s candidacy. Several others seem willing to share similar concerns off the record. The story also adds two cases where Singh’s positions in provincial politics could arguably have been influenced by his religious beliefs: a private member’s bill that sought to exempt Sikhs from having to wear motorcycle helmets, and a member’s statement over the provincial Liberal government’s controversial changes to the primary-school sex-education curriculum.

I could quibble with the latter of these examples. Singh’s statement on the sex-ed curriculum could have been made by Patrick Brown, the province’s Conservative leader, who is not Sikh. “The lack of inclusive consultation before announcing the curriculum was disrespectful to parents in my constituency,” part of Singh’s little speech, is a stock line in much of the opposition to the curriculum change.

But it’s less interesting to debate these points than to note that the anxiety Le Devoir chronicles exists, that it’s a challenge to the Singh candidacy, and to try to understand why these concerns are being expressed most loudly by the NDP’s Quebec wing.

Luckily we have a recent poll to guide us.

On June 26 the Angus Reid Institute published the results of surveys in the United States and Canada on attitudes towards diversity in political leadership. The Canadian results come from a randomized sample of 1,533 members of Angus Reid’s online panel; full methodology can be found here. Respondents were asked whether they would vote for a party led by a woman, a gay man, a man or woman wearing a religious head covering, and so on. This produced all sorts of fun cross-border comparisons—68 per cent of Canadians expect an atheist Prime Minister in the next 25 years, against only 37 per cent of Americans who expect an atheist President. But the internals from the poll suggest other useful comparisons. Here’s the Canadian regional table showing responses for various questions that begin, “Would you yourself consider voting for a party led by a person who is…”

Support for a Sikh-led party is only 46 per cent in Quebec, the lowest regional score in the country by eight points. On the generic “…man who wears a religious head-covering,” support is lowest in Quebec by 12 points. Support is also lowest in Quebec for parties led by Muslims, by Jews, and indeed by evangelical Christians.

This would probably be a good time for this Maclean’s writer to say the Angus Reid data don’t show a generalized inability among Quebec respondents to show “openness” to “difference.” No, the results are way more interesting than that. In fact, Quebec respondents were markedly more likely than respondents in the rest of Canada to support parties led by a gay man, a lesbian or an atheist. And there was no marked difference between Quebecers and other respondents when the hypothetical party leader was transgender, Indigenous, black or a woman.

In no other part of the country do the results line up as they do in Quebec: markedly less likely to support parties whose leaders wear some visible sign of their religious affiliation, markedly more likely to do so if their difference is expressed in some other way besides religion.

There’s an obvious explanation for this, but it rarely gets mentioned whenever the debate over so-called “reasonable accommodations” rears its head in Quebec or outside. It’s that Quebec has a markedly different cultural history with organized and visible religion than much of the rest of Canada.

Many older Quebecers, those whose memories stretch back before the mid-1960s at least, have personal memories of a time when the Roman Catholic church had a strong influence over public affairs. Even most younger Quebecers will have been taught, in great detail, about the period before the Quiet Revolution. And the Catholic church was pretty big on ostentatious displays of religious affiliation.

(You needn’t take my word on any of this. Marie McAndrew, a professor at the Université de Montréal’s faculty of education, has written often and thoughtfully on the “reasonable accommodations” debate and its cultural roots. In this representative piece, she writes: “…[W]e must remember that the people of Quebec who are of French-Canadian origin have a specific and usually more negative relationship with religion than people in the rest of Canada…. For most people born before the 1960s, in fact, the association between religion and public space evokes bad memories or at least memories that are incompatible with their democratic ideals.”)

The Quiet Revolution in Quebec was specifically a rebellion against religious influence. Progressive politics in many other parts of the country has been a politics of generalized tolerance; in Quebec progressive politics was often a politics of specific resistance. I lived in Quebec for five years and have written about its politics in instalments for nearly a quarter-century since, and I find this is one element of the debate over religion and politics that’s hardest for many non-Quebecers to grasp: suspicion of religion in politics is often a progressive impulse in Quebec politics. (Emphasis on “often,” as in, “of course not always, in Quebec or anywhere else.”)

That ex-NDP MP, Pierre Dionne Labelle, who’s quoted in the Le Devoir story? He was an anti-poverty activist before entering electoral politics. One of his few spotlight moments in the last Parliament was the day he stood in the Commons to complain that MPs had found themselves applauding a conservative American Catholic cardinal who’d visited the House the day before.

The Angus Reid results suggest that if one of the NDP leadership candidates were a lesbian atheist, she’d likely receive a better response in Quebec than in any other region (as long as she spoke good French, another deal-breaker according to Angus Reid). But if she wore a headscarf representing any religious affiliation (including, I suspect, that of a practicing Catholic; I do wish the survey had tested that hunch) she’d be out of the running.

This paradox hurts the NDP more than any party, because the NDP is uniquely whipsawed by its contradictions. Outside Quebec it is, or wants to believe it is, or can be at its best moments, the party of a generalized laissez-faire openness to religious, ethnic and sexual diversity. The kind of party that could proudly run Monia Mazigh as a candidate. Inside Quebec it’s a party that would regard a nice guy in a turban as a uniquely alarming prospect, with clear echoes of Quebec’s past. It’s not clear how to reconcile these two progressive traditions. It’s to Singh’s credit that he’s sought to confront the challenge head-on, with a genuinely charming video ad that shows him explaining his affinities for francophone Quebec while he dons his turban. Early evidence suggests the ad won’t be enough.

OTTAWA — NDP leadership candidate Charlie Angus is promising to find better ways to protect the interests of First Nations, Metis and Inuit children — including by dismantling the Indigenous Affairs Department.

The Ontario MP said he would create a federal ombudsperson for Indigenous children, who would have the legal authority to order government departments to comply with policies aimed at improving child welfare.

Last month, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found the federal government’s failure to fully implement Jordan’s Principle may have played a role in the suicide deaths of two 12-year-old girls from remote Wapekeka First Nation in northwestern Ontario.

The principle lays out how to handle jurisdictional disputes over paying for services to First Nations children, saying the first level of government to be contacted should cover the cost, with arguments over jurisdiction to be sorted out later.

Angus said he would also audit the Indigenous Affairs Department and Health Canada in order to figure out how the government runs its programs and then work with Indigenous communities on giving them the power to run them.

“It’s time for action that returns accountability to where it belongs, with parents and these communities,” Angus said in a news release Sunday.

Angus also said he would work with the parliamentary budget office to determine the true cost of delivering service to Indigenous peoples, ensure the Department of Justice stops fighting aboriginal rights in court and end the “culture of secrecy” when it comes to government plans and funding for Indigenous communities.

Angus is one of five candidates to replace NDP Leader Tom Mulcair in October.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/ndp-leadership-hopeful-charlie-angus-promises-help-for-indigenous-kids/feed/1Tories to Liberals: pay up, or don’t come to our conventionhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/tories-to-liberals-pay-up-or-dont-come-to-our-convention/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/tories-to-liberals-pay-up-or-dont-come-to-our-convention/#commentsFri, 26 May 2017 20:48:21 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=1021933The Conservatives are doing their best to make Grit observers feel unwelcome at their leadership confab

“..we are wondering if the Conservative Party will continue previous practice of allowing a limited number of observers at your leadership convention this weekend … We are looking to have 2 Liberal Members of Parliament and 1 party official join for parts of the event, and as you will know, a number of media outlets are hosting perspectives from a variety of parties on site. We would appreciate you clarifying this tonight—and like I mentioned, we would continue to reciprocate on the same number of observers for Liberal conventions.”

Hann denied the request. “The Liberals requested free passes,” he told Maclean’s by email on Friday. “I did not have free passes to provide. Standard practice is to trade passes for policy conventions.” Still, as the e-mail exchange shows, the Liberals offered to return the gesture at future policy conventions or leadership events like the one this weekend. The two Liberals planning to attend were MPs Adam Vaughan and Francis Drouin. Hann says they could buy passes to the event like members of the public, for $199 plus tax. The Grits say it’s absurd for the Tories to demand one party to pay another party—an unprecedented move that discourages them from attending.

“I’m at a loss for words, and I’m not normally at a loss for words,” said Vaughan. “The Conservatives sort of like to turn turtle, and look inwards. They have a history of trying to operate in a secluded environment all the time, and I guess they haven’t been able to shake that.” He explains that observing helps gather information on competitors. “You’re always curious to see the up-close workings of the opposition to see where they’re going, so you can get there before they do.”

Canadian politicians have long had the freedom to snoop at each others’ gatherings. Granting cross-party “observer” status is considered a gesture of transparency. Conservatives including Jason Kenney and James Moore have attended national Liberal conventions since 2004, as have NDP Olivia Chow and Nathan Cullen. At the 2016 national NDP convention, the Liberals’ Randy Boissonault kept watch.

In this case, the Conservatives seem inhospitable solely toward Liberals; New Democrat Alexandre Boulerice will attend the Conservative convention on Saturday with his press secretary, Sarah Andrews, who says they’ve been told they’ll have free passes waiting for them when they arrive. “They are reversing a long precedent and closing up shop even more than Harper did,” says Braeden Caley of the Liberals. “It makes one wonder about the more extreme agenda that the party is bringing forward with these leadership candidates and what they have to hide.”

Sometimes, inter-party spying goes too far. In February, an undercover caucus member of the B.C. Liberals was accused of attending an NDP youth meeting and videotaping the gathering of 10 young people. “She then secretly recorded these youths, using a cell phone she tried to hide on her lap,” David Eby, NDP housing critic, told The Tyee after the fact. Eby accused the operative of pretending to take a phone call when it came time for a group photo. He said she posed as an NDP youth when really she was “trying to dig up dirt for the election.”

But official observers are generallya symbol of civildemocracy, and Vaughan notes that they provide in-person access to alternative opinions for journalists. The phenomenon predates the Internet, when it would’ve been more difficult for the media to talk to opponents who weren’t on site. As a former reporter, Vaughan says, “I’m not sure whose lives they’re trying to make miserable.” With access to Liberals at the Tory convention, he adds, “we [would] have less cranky journalists hanging around.”

Vaughan is still scheduled to speak in a TV panel discussion and do interviews with several news outlets inside the venue this weekend. “I’m assuming I’ll be able to be escorted through the crowd,” he says.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/tories-to-liberals-pay-up-or-dont-come-to-our-convention/feed/7Jagmeet Singh announces bid for NDP leadershiphttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/jagmeet-singh-announces-bid-for-ndp-leadership/
Tue, 16 May 2017 19:06:07 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?post_type=rdm_video&p=1018263The young Ontario MPP has generated buzz since he came on the scene, including comparisons to Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.

]]>Jagmeet Singh set to enter federal NDP leadership racehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/jagmeet-singh-set-to-enter-federal-ndp-leadership-race/
Wed, 10 May 2017 15:57:35 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=1016129The current deputy leader of the Ontario NDP is said to be preparing to make the announcement official next week

NDP MPP Jagmeet Singh speaks at Queen’s Park in Toronto on Wednesday, October 28, 2015. Ontario deputy NDP leader Jagmeet Singh is set to launch a bid for federal leadership next week, The Canadian Press has learned. Sources familiar with Singh’s plans say he will make the announcement at the Bombay Palace in Brampton, Ont., on Monday night.THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette

OTTAWA – Ontario deputy NDP leader Jagmeet Singh is poised to launch a bid for federal leadership next week, The Canadian Press has learned.

Sources familiar with Singh’s plans say he will make the announcement at the Bombay Palace in Brampton, Ont., on Monday night – the venue where he held an election party in 2011 when he entered provincial politics.

They also say his campaign will be led by Michal Hay, executive assistant to Toronto city councillor Michael Layton – the son of late federal NDP leader Jack Layton.

Supporters note Singh is also backed by other New Democrats, including Manitoba legislature member Nahanni Fontaine, party youth wing co-chair Ali Chatur, Quebec organizer and former Layton speech writer Willy Blomme and Peel school board trustee Harkirat Singh.

At the time of the announcement, Horwath said Singh had been a “dynamic force” in politics, adding he increased political participation among young people who viewed him as a community leader and mentor.

Inside the provincial wing of the NDP, Horwath also acknowledged Singh’s work to push for provincial reductions of auto insurance rates and improving awareness around precarious employment fuelled by temporary job agencies.

Singh, regarded as a young and energetic leader, has also received nods from Toronto Life magazine on its lists of “50 Most Influential” and “Toronto’s Best Dressed.”

There are four official candidates in the lengthy race to replace Tom Mulcair as NDP leader in October.

First-quarter results from Elections Canada indicate Angus is far ahead of his competition on the fundraising front.

The report, which notes contributions from January to March 2017, showed Angus brought in more than $110,675, Ashton had $65,521, Caron had $57,235 and Julian raised $19,143.08.

The NDP says former veterans ombudsman Pat Stogran and Ibrahim Bruno El-Khoury, the founder of a Montreal consulting firm, are not considered official candidates because they must submit nomination paperwork and a registration fee.

Stogran and El-Khoury’s names appear on the Elections Canada website as candidates while Singh’s does not.

]]>Is Trudeau’s youth council also a Grit recruitment scheme?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/is-trudeaus-youth-council-a-grit-recruitment-scheme/
Fri, 28 Apr 2017 20:58:50 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=1008653The PM's panel of young advisors raises concern the Liberals are politicking on the public dime

Trudeau with the Prime Minister’s Youth Council in Calgary (Jeff McIntosh/CP)

Chris Zhou of Charlottetown is 18 years old and has met the entire Liberal cabinet. As a member of the Prime Minister’s Youth Council, he was flown to Calgary in January and ate Indian food alongside ministers Armajeet Sohi, Catherine McKenna and Ahmed Hussen, and spent about five hours with Justin Trudeau. He had already met the PM at a previous meeting in Ottawa, though the leader skedaddled after 15 minutes. “He planned to stay longer,” Zhou recalls, “but he had to go to Israel for official functions.”

The Prime Minister’s Youth Council was started by the Trudeau government in January 2016 with a mandate of gathering non-partisan policy advice from young Canadians. The council now includes 26 members aged 16 to 24, from Nunavut to Newfoundland to Penticton, B.C., who travel up to four times per year to meetings across Canada, discussing topics including diversity, immigration and mental health. Their flights, accommodation, chaperones, venue rentals and monthly stipends are covered by taxpayers, who will spend around $400,000 this year on the council.

The program may achieve its stated goal of bringing young voices to government ears, so the government can better understand the next generation’s priorities. But critics wonder if it also serves a more partisan purpose. The Prime Minister’s Office has been hushed about what the youth learn from their training materials, and while participants have befriended many a Liberal, they haven’t been introduced to many opposition MPs, sparking claims that Canadians are spending hundreds of thousands annually to help the Grits woo young people.

“I’m the critic for youth, so why did I not have any meetings with them?” says NDP MP Anne Minh-Thu Quach, who sponsored a petition demanding to see the council’s meeting minutes. “If it’s public money that’s invested in those meetings,” she says, “we should be able to know if it’s really a Liberal thing or a non-partisan council. We don’t even know their agenda.” Quach raised the issue during question period in February and submitted a written inquiry of the Privy Council Office, which provides administrative support to the council. “We know that for the moment, young people are not really allowed to tell others what they are talking about during those meetings,” she says.

Upon joining, council members signed a confidentiality agreement, which includes not sharing any “confidential” information to “any person outside the Youth Council.” They require “written guidance from the youth secretariat [of the Privy Council Office] before sharing any materials about the Youth Council that are not already in the public domain.”

The PMO declined to send a copy of the training materials to Maclean’s, stating in an e-mail, “the ways we advise members of the Youth Council is continually evolving and not prescriptive in nature.” Council members describe the lessons diplomatically: “Of course, we have a Liberal leader so we’re going to hear about all the incredible work the Liberals are doing, but not in vain of the other [parties],” says 20-year-old Mustafa Ahmed of Toronto. “We’re just getting to see the sacrifice that has to happen to reach certain goals.”

More than 17,000 young people applied to be on the council, after the government sent out a call for applications last winter through social media and youth groups. From a shortlist of 300, 15 were initially chosen, before another 11 were added in January 2017. The selectees range from Hani Al Moulia, a Syrian refugee, to Nmesomachukwu Umenwofor-Nweze, a young woman from Nigeria who grew up in Iqaluit.

The Privy Council Office confirmed that the first meeting with all 26 members was a three-day affair in Calgary, timed around a Liberal cabinet retreat in the same province. They stayed in a hotel on the University of Calgary campus with two chaperones hired through Encounters with Canada, a youth program run by Heritage Canada. After the group checked in the first day, recalls Ahmed, “they gave us booklets upon booklets and notes upon notes.”

Media training followed. They talked about potentially “tricky or controversial questions” the press might ask about the council and how to answer them, Ahmed recalls. Zhou says they considered appointing a spokesperson but decided against it, and that they also learned how to maintain a social media presence. Most members have Facebook profile photos of themselves standing with Trudeau. Opposition members are skeptical: “Why would they receive media training?” asks Quach. “Is the government afraid of what they could answer? If so, why?”

Some of the youth did get a chance to meet two opposition MPs. At the first meeting in Ottawa, the local MP for each council member was invited to a lunch, regardless of party. The NDP’s Richard Canning of South Okanagan-West Kootenay showed up, as did Hunter Tootoo of Nunavut, a former Liberal cabinet minister who now sits as an Independent.

The Privy Council Office says the expenses for the inaugural meeting in Ottawa in September 2016—with the first 15 members—were $53,000. Costs of the Calgary meeting, with the full cohort of 26, totalled $83,000. The next in-person meeting will happen in Montreal in May, followed by up to two more throughout the year. If the costs are similar to the Calgary trip, the total will exceed $330,000.

Adding to the price is members’ monthly stipends. “We’re not really supposed to talk about that,” says Ahmed. But another council member told Maclean’s each participant gets $200 per month, part of which may go toward organizing events in their hometowns. This money is honoraria for participating in monthly teleconferences and writing reports on their community activities, surpassing $62,000 per year for the entire group.

The youth have spent about six and a half hours total in-person with the Prime Minister, who appointed himself the minister of youth (though he’s the only minister without a mandate letter). “We have real access,” says Ahmed. “He leaves his line open for any moment we need to call him. We can e-mail him. It’s empowering to know that I could set up a call with the Prime Minister of my country.”

In fact, council members contact Trudeau through the youth secretariat of the Privy Council Office, but they do get prompt replies. After the PM backtracked on his election promise for electoral reform, the council collectively wrote a letter asking him to reconsider. Zhou recalls Trudeau responding that he was “looking out for the interests of Canadians,” and adds: “He thanks us for [our] engagement, and encourages us to keep on advising and even criticizing him on these issues.”

Whatever the interaction with the PM, critics are more worried that all 17,000 applicants to the council were asked to sign off that their information could be stored. The Privacy Notice Statement says the information will only be used, at an applicant’s consent, to send e-mail updates on youth engagement opportunities from across the government. Rachael Harder, Conservative critic for youth, accuses the Liberals of storing it for the next election. “It would appear this is simply an exercise in gathering information,” she says. “The Prime Minister can exploit these people for garnering support financially and through votes.” The Prime Minister’s Office says such claims are “categorically false” and that applicants are regularly sent information about other opportunities, like participating in the Youth Climate Change Forum and Youth Disability Forum.

Council members say they would like to meet more opposition MPs in the future—and they may do so on their own time even if the panel’s agenda doesn’t ensure it. Through a recent university conference in Ottawa, Zhou sat down with NDP MP Nikki Ashton, while Ahmed, a poet and singer-songwriter, performed in 2015 at a New Democrat campaign event. In fact, he declares, “I have a relationship with Thomas Mulcair. He’s a friend of mine.”

This story has been updated to include comment from the Prime Minister’s Office.

MONTREAL – The Liberal government’s plan to move ahead on marijuana legalization is up in smoke, NDP leadership candidates suggested during Sunday’s leadership debate in Montreal while they also addressed a range of issues affecting youth including student debt and precarious work.

B.C. MP Peter Julian, one of four contenders in the race to replace Tom Mulcair as NDP leader, said the federal government has failed to keep its 2015 campaign pledge to legalize and regulate pot for recreational purposes.

For its part, the government says it is working on crafting legislation on marijuana legalization set to be introduced this spring — a move that follows the work of a task force assigned to study the issue.

“I believe in legalization,” Julian said during the NDP’s second leadership debate. “I do not believe Justin Trudeau is going to bring in the legalization of marijuana and as proof that … we are still seeing, particularly young Canadians, being criminalized by simple possession of marijuana.”

Many young people opted to support the Liberals in the last election due to this promise, Manitoba MP Niki Ashton said.

The Liberals ran a cynical campaign in 2015, added Ontario MP Charlie Angus, suggesting the Liberals ticked all the right boxes, including on pot, with no intention of pursuing them.

Sunday’s debate in Montreal — another instalment in the party’s lengthy leadership race — also featured discussion of skyrocketing student debt and the need to address tuition fees.

Young people struggle to purchase homes and participate in the economy, Caron said Sunday, noting his proposal for a basic income would help address this issue.

Caron, an economist, has called for a taxable supplement that would help those Canadians whose income levels fall below a standard minimum threshold, determined in part by the size of their family and the city they live in.

The pitch is designed to complement existing provincial and federal social programs, not replace them, Caron says, noting 70 per cent of those people who are living in poverty are considered working poor: they have jobs but they don’t earn enough to get by.

University graduates can no longer rely on long-term jobs over the course of their careers, Ashton said, noting Canada faces an “emerging crisis” as a result.

Many young people voted in record numbers in the last federal election for a Liberal message of change, she added, noting millennials have had enough of politics that fail them.

“I look out at a number of young people here today, some of whom I had the chance to hear from about what they are facing in terms of precarious work,” she said. “We are a generation, and I am part of that generation as well, that risks living a life worse off than their parents.”

Angus is calling for a reinstatement of a $15 federal minimum wage, adding young Canadians are being forced into precarious work and many earn less than a living wage.

“It is our job in this renewal to reach out to people who feel they have been written off the political map of this nation to give them hope but also certainty that when we form government we are going to do more,” he said.

]]>VANCOUVER – Margaret Mitchell, a former New Democrat MP who became a leading voice in raising awareness about domestic abuse, died Wednesday. She was 92.

Mitchell represented the riding of Vancouver East from 1979 to 1993.

New Democrat MP Nathan Cullen paid tribute to Mitchell in the House of Commons in Ottawa on Thursday, calling her a champion of women’s rights.

“From before her time here, throughout her entire existence as a member of Parliament, she fought for justice for women,” he said.

He said Mitchell also fought for justice for Chinese-Canadians, who were forced to pay a head tax to come to Canada, and she always fought for basic rights for all humans.

“Some who were around (the House of Commons) at the time or followed soon after … they will properly place her as one of the leading women voices for the NDP, and I think then as a result, leading voices in Canada,” said Cullen.

When Mitchell raised concerns about domestic abuse 35 years ago in the Commons, her comments were met with laughter.

In her autobiography “No Laughing Matter,” Mitchell wrote that the initial jeering by the male-dominated House of Commons provoked a national uproar, but also opened the doors to discussing spousal violence in Canada.

Shane Simpson, who represents Vancouver Hastings for the NDP in the provincial legislature, called Mitchell a lifelong mentor during a speech in the house.

“It was appropriate she passed on International Women’s Day as the fight for women’s equality was such an important part of her life’s work,” he said. “She created a national debate when she called out male MPs who made jokes while she raised the issue of violence against women, chastising those MPs and calling it no laughing matter.”

Mitchell received the Order of B.C. in 2000. She was given Vancouver’s Freedom of the City award in November.

]]>Guy Caron enters NDP leadership racehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/guy-caron-enters-ndp-leadership-race/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/guy-caron-enters-ndp-leadership-race/#commentsMon, 27 Feb 2017 22:18:15 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=987529NDP MP Guy Caron stands with his son Dominic, 8, daughter Edith, 5, and wife Valerie Stansfield as he announces that he will run for the leadership of the New…

NDP MP Guy Caron stands with his son Dominic, 8, daughter Edith, 5, and wife Valerie Stansfield as he announces that he will run for the leadership of the New Democratic Party, on Monday, Feb. 27, 2017 in Gatineau, Que. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang

GATINEAU, Que. – The ho-hum New Democrat leadership race got a little more competitive Monday as Quebec MP Guy Caron became the third candidate to officially declare that he wants to be the one to succeed Tom Mulcair.

The competition, which got off to a slow start in part because of an extended goodbye from Mulcair, has been slowly gaining momentum in recent weeks, with B.C. MP Peter Julian and northern Ontario MP Charlie Angus entering the fray.

Caron, a former economist who hopes to position himself as a would-be leader with financial acumen, announced his plans alongside his wife and two children at a news conference at a log cabin in Gatineau, Que.

Caron said the location holds a special place in his heart: it’s where late New Democrat leader Jack Layton held a campaign event in 2011 – the same year Caron became one of 59 MPs from Quebec elected as part of the NDP’s so-called “Orange Wave.”

Caron – who worked for the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada before launching a political career – also unveiled his first campaign plank Monday: replacing social programs with a basic income for all Canadians.

“Traditional economic plans of yesteryear that promised one thing and result in another is no longer acceptable,” Caron said. “Our citizens are asking for more – and frankly, they deserve not only better, but the best we can give them.”

He said plans to spend the week connecting with supporters in Ottawa, Montreal, Trois-Rivieres, Quebec City and his home town of Rimouski, Que.

As the only Quebec candidate in the race so far, Caron is well-positioned to speak about rebuilding support in his home province, where the NDP holds 16 seats.

Toronto and Atlantic Canada will also be key areas for growth, he said Monday.

“As a Quebecer who grew up in Rimouski, who lived in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto in the past, I am well-placed to actually be able do that work that will be needed to ensure that the NDP will regain its strength coast-to-coast,” he said.

The NDP remains the second strongest political force in Quebec, said former NDP national director Karl Belanger. Support in the province is vital if the party is ever to chart a path to power, he added.

“That is where the NDP can count on some interesting support to build and form a government,” said Belanger, a Quebecer himself.

“There is no other path within the present electorate that would lead to an NDP government if there is not a sizable Quebec caucus.”

The NDP went from the presumptive front-runners at the start of the 2015 campaign to finishing a distant third, thanks in part to a divisive and controversial debate in Quebec over whether to permit face-coverings during citizenship ceremonies.

The Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois campaigned against the NDP position, which endorsed a woman’s right to wear the niqab, Belanger said. Before long, Quebec voters no longer saw Mulcair as a viable option to replace Stephen Harper.

Still, Quebec continues to represent the largest share of the current NDP caucus, along with British Columbia, he added.

The candidates are scheduled to meet face-to-face March 12 for a bilingual debate in Ottawa. Julian is fluently bilingual while Angus admits he’s working on his French daily.

Caron was tight-lipped Monday when asked about Angus’ ease with the language.

“This is not my call,” he said, noting he has had few French conversations with his caucus colleague. “I will leave it to francophone members who are in Quebec or outside of Quebec to determine his level of French.”

Manitoba MP Niki Ashton and deputy Ontario NDP leader Jagmeet Singh are also said to be considering whether to join the race.

Party members are scheduled to select a new leader by the end of October.

OTTAWA – The federal NDP leadership race will likely get new candidates in coming days, with veteran MP Charlie Angus expected to make an announcement this weekend.

Angus is inviting supporters on Facebook to a tavern in Toronto on Sunday afternoon to get involved in a “fantastic and wild ride.”

He also says a few speeches will be made during the event that will include musician Jason Collett.

Angus, first elected in 2004, is an outspoken advocate for indigenous communities, including Attawapiskat First Nation — a reserve in his riding that garnered international headlines for a series of youth suicides.

Quebec MP Guy Caron is also expected to make a decision about running before Tuesday.

The economist recently stepped aside as the party’s finance critic to mull a leadership bid.

“I can tell you it’s looking good and stay tuned for the next few days,” a source close to Caron said Wednesday.

The race to replace Tom Mulcair as NDP leader won’t conclude until fall but the first debate among leadership hopefuls is slated for March 12 in Ottawa.

So far, only B.C. MP Peter Julian has entered the race.

Earlier this week, Julian received endorsements from four Quebec MPs —Pierre-Luc Dusseault, Robert Aubin, Brigitte Sansoucy and Francois Choquette — at a rally held in Sherbrooke, Que.

Julian, a bilingual candidate, suggests Quebec and B.C. share similar values, including the need to protect the environment and fight against pipelines.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/federal-ndp-leadership-race-likely-to-expand-soon/feed/1MPs hold emergency debate on U.S. travel banhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/mps-hold-emergency-debate-on-u-s-travel-ban/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/mps-hold-emergency-debate-on-u-s-travel-ban/#commentsWed, 01 Feb 2017 02:00:34 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=978491NDP wants to see the Liberal government back up its message with policies

NDP MP Kwan says the Liberal government should lift the cap on the number of refugees who can be privately sponsored, which is currently set at 1,000 and was reached over the weekend. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward

OTTAWA – The Liberal government is holding the line on its immigration and refugee policy in the wake of the U.S. travel ban, but leaving the door open to future adjustments as they continue to study the far-reaching — and fast-changing — implications.

“We have a very robust and welcoming refugee system,” Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said Tuesday.

“We don’t develop policy on the fly. We have to make sure that we understand all the implications, to make sure that we stick to our numbers and make sure that we develop policy after careful consideration of all the implications.”

The Liberal cabinet minister was responding to calls — including from the New Democrats — to do more to fill the gaps left by U.S. President Donald Trump’s temporary immigration ban on people from seven Muslim-majority countries and his indefinite bar to Syrian refugees.

“Canada must step up to do its part,” said NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan. “There is much more that Canada can do and must do.”

At Kwan’s request, MPs held an emergency debate Tuesday evening on the U.S. travel ban and how Canada should respond.

In the debate, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair urged the government to lift an “artificial, arbitrary” cap on the number of Syrian refugees who can be brought to Canada through private sponsorships, which is currently set at 1,000 applications — a target that was reached over the weekend.

“A cap such as this one, especially when the United States has banned admission to Syrian refugees for an indeterminate time is completely unacceptable and goes against the international law that has been advocated since the Second World War,” Mulcair said.

In a weekend tweet that was seen as a thinly veiled response to Trump’s measures, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promoted Canada as a country that welcomes refugees, no matter their religion, and considers the diversity of its people to be a strength.

During question period on Tuesday, Mulcair asked Trudeau whether he plans to denounce the U.S. travel ban when he meets Trump.

“Canadians expect their prime minister to stand up for their values, for our principles, and to advocate compassion and generosity,” Trudeau replied.

“It’s the best way to protect and promote our values, our strong communities, our united communities, I will always do that. I am here to defend Canadian values and I will do so loudly and clearly.”

Trudeau and Trump are indeed expected to meet at some point in the coming days, but a senior government source said the details are still being sorted out.

Kwan said she wants to see the Liberal government back up its message with policies. “We now need to ensure that there is a plan to match those words.”

On Sunday, Hussen said Canada would grant temporary resident visas to anyone who is stranded here because of the ban, but Kwan said that does not go far enough.

The NDP also wants the government to fast-track the acceptance of refugees who had been approved to go to the U.S. and whose futures are now in limbo.

Hussen, however, said the Liberal government plans to stick to its current plans, which he said includes a “historic high” of 16,000 privately sponsored refugees.

Hussen also noted the U.S. is now letting in the more than 800 refugees whose applications had been finalized.

“They had initially been declined and denied those flights,” he said.

“Now, we’re getting news that that is not the case anymore. It shows you that this is a fast-changing situation.”

The office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has said about 20,000 refugees might have been resettled there during the period covered by Trump’s suspension order.

The New Democrats want the government to suspend the safe third country refugee agreement with the U.S. and to work with partners around the world to deal with the sudden shortfall in refugee resettlement.

They also want greater assurances for those crossing into the U.S. from Canada.

The Liberal government has said they were reassured by Michael Flynn, the U.S. national security adviser, that the ban would not apply to those travelling on a Canadian passport, including dual citizens, or people with a valid Canadian permanent resident card.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/mps-hold-emergency-debate-on-u-s-travel-ban/feed/1Rachel Notley set to take hammer, saw to Alberta economy in 2017http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/rachel-notley-set-to-take-hammer-saw-to-alberta-economy-in-2017/
Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:10:49 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=967065Alberta's premier looks back at her year as her NDP government looks to shake up economy and energy sector in 2017

EDMONTON – The blueprints are completed, so Alberta Premier Rachel Notley will begin hammering and sawing away at Alberta’s energy base and economy in the coming year, in some cases stripping it down to the studs.

“I reserve my right to come out with a couple of extra things, but I think at this point you’ve seen the majority of (the plan),” Notley said in a year-end interview with The Canadian Press.

“Now it’s about implementing and executing.”

They’re changes that follow a tumultuous 2016 — the first time in 45 years Alberta was governed for 12 consecutive months by a party not named the Progressive Conservatives.

It’s a grand plan Notley and her team are implementing while simultaneously repelling accusations that it’s a fundamentally flawed ideological experiment that will make Alberta’s faltering economy even worse.

On Jan. 1, gas at the pumps goes up 4.5 cents a litre. Home heating and business fuels go up, too, as Alberta’s carbon tax kicks in.

The government estimates the average family will pay $443 more in 2017, but opposition members say it will be at least double that as the carbon tax dominoes through the economy and consumers pay for it through higher prices.

Notley has been labelled a double dealer, not explicitly running in the election on a carbon tax but nevertheless implementing one.

She is also depicted as a haughty, detached Marie Antoinette, shuttled around in a government-issue SUV while telling Albertans to avoid the brunt of the tax by changing their lifestyle, walking more, maybe taking more public transit.

“There’s been a lot of hyperbole out there,” said Notley.

“The increase that people will see at the gas tank on Jan. 1 will be smaller than the differential between gas sold on 109th (Street) and 99th (Street in Edmonton) on the same day.

“Most people will realize that this doesn’t suddenly mean that they have to park their car and walk to work, although quite frankly the more people who start thinking about that, the better.

“Because (doing so) is healthy … and it really is about getting people to use less emissions.”

About two-thirds of Alberta families — those in the middle-to-lower income brackets — will get partial or full rebates.

The thinking is those who don’t qualify have the extra discretionary income and will be able to take part in upcoming rebate programs for energy efficiency.

The money from the carbon tax, estimated at $3 billion this year, will be used for green projects, including more public transit.

The tax is one plank in Notley’s climate change plan.

In 2016, the province struck a deal to compensate power producers as they phase out coal-fired power by 2030, replacing it with more natural gas and a mix of renewables such as wind, solar, and hydro.

To ensure the lights stay on, the government is backstopping the new electricity grid with loans and paying producers, not just for power used, but to have a surplus on hand to prevent shortages. Rates will be capped in the short term to shield ratepayers from price spikes.

Notley’s team believes the plan stands on its own but has already paid dividends. In November, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, citing Alberta’s plan, approved two pipeline expansions.

Opposition members have branded the plan a reckless multi-billion-dollar ideological experiment that will make Alberta less competitive in the global marketplace and further punish families struggling to find work.

There are other changes coming. In 2017, Alberta’s minimum wage will reach $13.60 an hour en route to $15 an hour in 2018.

The province is hoping incentive programs will diversify the economy and create jobs.

This year’s budget deficit is pegged at $10.8 billion.

It all means added stress.

Notley said to help offset that, she upped her daily running regimen and in October ran a half marathon in Vancouver.

To lighten the load, she also admitted to crossing the floor.

It was on Dec. 12, about 10 o’clock at night, on the second last day of a gruelling fall sitting.

Notley sat in the middle in the front bench with government house leader Brian Mason. Across the aisle she noticed the old desks she and Mason occupied as a two-member opposition were empty.

“So I said, ‘Hey Brian, let’s go sit over there,'” recalled Notley.

No, said Mason.

Yes, said the premier.

So they did, walking past the arched eyebrows of the sergeant-at-arms to sit in their old spots in the corner.

They chirped at the PCs a bit, then looked across at the sea of seats now occupied by their own caucus.

]]>Canada’s opposition parties seek leaders—and meaninghttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/canadas-opposition-parties-seek-leaders-and-meaning/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/canadas-opposition-parties-seek-leaders-and-meaning/#commentsMon, 12 Dec 2016 15:38:04 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=961957In 2017, the Conservatives and New Democrats will work out their new champions—and it's about to get interesting

The Conservative and NDP leadership races, through to the end of 2016, were looking a bit like a bad art-house film: muddied plotlines, no recognizable names and an interminable running time.

But in 2017, these races are all but guaranteed to heat up because the two parties find themselves in quite similar and somewhat dire circumstances. Weakened in the House of Commons, drifting under extended temporary leadership and squaring off against a Liberal government that remains remarkably popular despite its missteps, both opposition parties face a crisis to define their identity and future direction.

Tim Powers, a Conservative strategist and vice-chairman of Summa Strategies, sees three possible directions for the Tory party at this early stage. The Tories could go Harper Lite with Andrew Scheer, who has a very similar agenda to the former prime minister, but a more amiable demeanour; they could opt for complete retrenchment, as represented by Kellie Leitch’s divisive hard-right proposals such as screening immigrants for “Canadian values”; or they could choose a return to progressive conservatism, as embodied by Michael Chong, who is in favour of a carbon tax, for example. “A lot of the Conservative identity over time will come more to the fore when a permanent leader is elected,” Powers says. “Though there will probably be some struggles after that permanent leader is elected, because I don’t see the dominant sort of leadership that was present with Stephen Harper.”

Powers argues the 2015 election was largely about tone and temperament rather than policy distinctions. But by 2019, given the Liberal government’s free-spending ways, he believes the Conservatives should refocus on “fiscal rectitude” and make the case that they will look out for voters and manage the books better. That’s a drum Maxime Bernier has been beating in his leadership campaign so far.

It would be a mistake to look for a leadership candidate who can go toe-to-toe with Trudeau in a charisma derby, Powers adds (“You’re not going to win”), and there’s no one like that in the pool of candidates anyway. But likeability and personality matter. Bernier, Raitt, Scheer and Chong tick that box nicely, in Powers’s estimation.

On the NDP front, where there are no formally declared candidates yet, Ian Capstick, a founding partner of MediaStyle and former NDP adviser, sees virtue in the party’s current basement-dwelling status. With Tom Mulcair “quite unadvisedly” staying on as leader until his successor is chosen, Capstick believes there’s an artificial downward pull on the party’s polling numbers, and a new leader will enjoy a renewal bounce that could kick-start momentum. “The New Democrats have probably never been in a worse position, and they’ve probably never had a better opportunity,” he says.

Mulcair isolated himself among loyalists and failed to connect with his caucus, Capstick argues; now the party needs a leader who listens to the rank-and-file, can demonstrate calm and appeal to voters. “At the end of the day, they have to be interesting.”

One of the biggest challenges for the NDP is carving out a distinct progressive niche now that the Liberals are eating their lunch on that front. “That’s something the entire party is going to have to contend with over the course of the next three years: how do you remain relevant as the social democratic party when the neo-Liberal party is viewed—wrongly, in my estimation—as being social democratic enough?” Capstick says. “Not easy.” However, he believes many of the young voters who were drawn out for the first time by Trudeau’s Liberals in 2015 are up for grabs—particularly if climate change is an important issue and they’ve been disillusioned by Ottawa’s approach and pipeline approvals.

The New Year’s resolutions of the NDP and Conservatives—to define their essential character and find a way to make that speak compellingly to voters—are very tall orders. “Both of these parties are going through these existential crises. That’s not fun. Nobody in their life wants to go through an existential crisis,” Capstick says. “Nobody in politics wants to go through one either. It’s tough, it’s emotional, it’s a lot of effort.” And that’s exactly why things are about to get interesting for Canadian political observers.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/canadas-opposition-parties-seek-leaders-and-meaning/feed/3Noah and the Liberal floodhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/noah-and-the-liberal-flood/
Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:35:33 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=933125Noah Richler takes readers inside the intense world of his failed campaign to become an NDP MP

So it wasn’t all for a lark, a chance for an inside glimpse at a reviled profession, followed up by a mocking tome with a Hunter S. Thompson-esque subtitle. Noah Richler’s The Candidate: Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, an account of his run for the NDP in Toronto’s midtown riding of Toronto–St. Paul’s in the 2015 federal election, is certainly surreal enough. There are some fine fantasy sequences, like the one where cabinet minister Richler (public safety, no less) watches in Parliament as Prime Minister Tom Mulcair effortlessly vivisects the Opposition.

But the memoir is no more surreal than the Canadian way of politics and the intense 11-week experience demand. Richler, once he had thrown his hat in the ring—and had it picked up by the NDP, no sure thing itself — was as politically (and partisanly) committed as any anti-Harperite in the nation. He was also engaged, if more intermittently, in watching himself go down the rabbit hole. If some of those experiences are coloured by the glow of hindsight, the self-awareness is what makes his account, at times as chaotic as the campaign itself, so compelling. By the end, readers can’t help but conclude that every suspicion, hope and cliché about politics is both true and false. It boils down, says Richler in an interview, to the “paradox that people put themselves forward to do good—and the way they have to do that is to put their fortunes in the hands of the amoral, the spin doctors.”

The 56-year-old writer and critic had been contemplating political life with increasing urgency since Stephen Harper’s Conservatives won their majority in 2011. The choice of non-Tory party wasn’t entirely fixed—Richler talked to the Greens, the NDP and even the Liberals. After Chrystia Freeland’s by-election win as a Toronto-area Liberal MP in 2013, Richler met with the former journalist (now the federal minister of international trade), in part because her career trajectory was not dissimilar to his own. They had journalist friends in common too, and Freeland knew Noah’s sister, Martha.

The sense that Liberals, or at least some of them, are his kind of people socially if not ideologically, never quite leaves Richler. His own mother asks him why he’s not running for Justin Trudeau’s party. In one of The Candidate’s fantasy sections, Richler’s defeated opponent Carolyn Bennett — in real life the long-time Liberal incumbent who whomped all comers in the election and is currently minister of Indigenous and northern affairs — sends him a text from Parliament’s public gallery, calling him a “traitor to your class.” What Richler perceives as Liberal arrogance — he writes he felt his “hackles rise” when Freeland explains her decision to join the party by saying, “Justin has the brand” — alienated him as much as ideological differences: “I can’t stand the sense of entitlement,” he says, adding, in a dig at recent eye-popping ministerial moving expenses, “especially the use of public money.”

Besides, the NDP was interested in him, and had hit the right notes on the issues that mattered most to Richler: Aboriginal policy, which he considers “the most important question facing the country,” and the civil-liberties implications of the anti-terror bill C-51. By July 2015, after a lengthy vetting process, with Richler being upfront about what from his past might embarrass the party (serious teenage drug use) he was cleared to run.

The NDP, unable to detect a pulse of local candidate interest in St. Paul’s, perhaps because the party had never topped 23 per cent of the vote there, offered it, and Richler accepted, despite his qualms about being parachuted in. (He lives in Toronto’s Cabbagetown neighbourhood, a 20-minute bike ride away.) Richler had a boffo opening night, arranging for NDP eminence Stephen Lewis to speak at his nomination meeting, and raising $16,000 for a riding association which had $350 (“or thereabouts,” according to its treasurer) in the bank. “We had,” writes a pumped-up Richler, “a campaign.”

It wasn’t all downhill from there, but the political lessons came hard and fast, offered by often shell-shocked veterans or gleaned from experience. The days can be insanely long and the mood swings Trumpian. Everyone will believe they know better than you and won’t be shy in telling you about it after the fact. Fundraising is a constant soul-eating imperative — $16,000 was a good start, but estimates for a solid campaign began at $50,000. From somewhere came an ominous warning: “The Liberals start slow and then come on strong.” And this indisputable nugget: “90 per cent of your vote will depend on the leader’s performance in the last three weeks of the campaign.” Canadians, says Richler, who is troubled by it, have begun “behaving presidentially in a parliamentary system.”

Then there was the stuff he actually enjoyed, from making satirical videos to tossing barbs at all-candidate meetings to knocking on doors. To the surprise of his wife, House of Anansi publisher Sarah MacLachlan, Richler says, “I liked the canvassing” and the “engaging people” he met. Among them, all viewed with a writer’s eye as much as a politician’s, were a Persian man in a room crowded with 20 birds in cages, an elderly Italian couple with an unfathomable hydro bill, and a polite Tory ready to talk things over, at great length. (Richler, who was always willing to discuss the big picture, had trouble meeting the 30-seconds-per-door pace his campaign workers describe as “ideal.”)

At doors in social housing complexes, he discussed “muzzled scientists” — a surprisingly hot topic—and the long-form census, he says, “matters that never arose at tonier doors.” There, it was all the economy, and Richler comfortably engaged in discussions about how the NDP was going to raise the funds for its plans through judicious tax hikes and not by deficits. Comfortable, that is, until Trudeau, outflanking the NDP on the left, announced plans for a popular $10-billion deficit for infrastructure spending.

Inside the “cocoonish” world of an intense campaign, Richler didn’t at first see it — the Liberals coming on strong, that is — embroiled as he was in a much-ado-about-nothing social media storm. A polemicist with a sharp turn of phrase, Richler was bound to have written something of use to his political enemies, and he was informed, one day in mid-September, of three (apparently) toxic comments set to appear in newspapers.

Richler was angry, less at the attempted Internet shaming — clearly, he says, the result of Liberal “oppo” research — than with the to-ing and fro-ing between him and an apology-demanding party HQ. The national campaign, whose defensive and unimaginative campaign was grinding on him, was adamant that no mere cog in the machine should create a “distraction” for the leader. That was the same reasoning it used in squelching one of Richler’s videos, in which he literally kicks Harper out of his seat across from Peter Mansbridge and takes over the “interview.”

It was the lowest point in the campaign, the time Richler came closest to quitting, and inaugurated its final, dispiriting stretch. He was exhausted, once almost crashing his car, and saying now, “I felt the urge to.” He could feel the coming Liberal majority too, the “brand” winning big. He recalls when he admitted it to himself, at a debate on Aboriginal issues: “I declared the chief of the Assembly of First Nations should be in cabinet. The moment I said it, I knew I had thrown in the towel.” The reason he carried on to the end is much the same as why soldiers keep fighting — for the sake of their comrades. Richler was impressed and “very touched” by his campaign volunteers, with whom he formed an ad-hoc tribe, made not of people like him, but people who think like him.

Would he do it all again? A reader could be forgiven for thinking, not a chance, given all the bridge-burning in the book. But there were highs as well as lows, and the dice can always land differently. The candidate may yet be seen again.

]]>NDP looks to woo activists and moneyhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ndp-looks-to-woo-activists-and-money/
Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:41:54 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=926115The NDP has only raised $1.08 million from 15,906 donors in 2016 – a far cry from its competition on both counts

]]>OTTAWA – The federal NDP will turn to its network of social activists to woo progressives back to the party fold this fall, according to the party’s new national director.

Nearly a year after the last election, New Democrats are trying to stop the bleed of support to Justin Trudeau’s Liberals.

Robert Fox, a former Oxfam executive who was recently named NDP national director, said there are many activists who are not connected to the party and could be.

“We need to reach out and ensure that all the sorts of people who are working on the issues that we are working on, that they feel we are open to them and we are looking for their participation, we are looking for their ideas we are looking for their energy, we are looking for their passion,” Fox said.

A direct appeal to the left was on the tip of Tom Mulcair’s tongue at the party’s caucus meeting in Montreal last week, where he defined the party’s core values as “environmentalism, pacifism, feminism and socialism.”

For his part, Fox is trying to use his own experience to address internal party challenges, such as slumping fundraising figures.

Elections Canada figures from the second quarter of 2016 paint a bleak financial picture for the New Democrats who collected $1.08 million from 15,906 donors.

The figures are a far cry from the Conservatives, who brought in $5.07 million from 37,223 donors, and the Liberals who received $4.9 million from 36,080 contributors.

The first thing New Democrats need to do is tap the strength of the 44-member team itself, Fox noted.

Veteran caucus member Nathan Cullen said he is confident that the NDP can stay connected to progressives who will consider his party again in three years.

He believes many voters are giving the Liberals the benefit of the doubt for now, but said Trudeau’s actions on issues including electoral reform and climate change will be the real test.

“If he disappoints, folks are just dating,” Cullen said in an interview.

“We’ve never had a celebrity prime minister before … the world of celebrity is a very different place. It gets built quickly and it gets torn down quickly.”

Cullen – a 2012 NDP leadership candidate who opted to stay out of this race – also believes the leadership race will help to generate enthusiasm and money once the race isn’t so far away.

So far, there are no candidates vying to replace Tom Mulcair. A successor will be named next fall.

“Whenever a leadership contest happens, you see a rush of new members as all of the candidates try to sign up people,” said Queen’s University labour and history professor Christo Aivali.

“While that happens, there’s usually associated donations. That will help. I think a new leader will create a … person behind which the party can work forward towards. That will help bring in new money.”

MONTREAL – Tom Mulcair tried Wednesday to put an end to nagging questions about his leadership of the NDP, emerging from a caucus meeting to say he has unanimous support to stay on.

Mulcair, who intends to step down in fall 2017 when a successor is named, said he plans to work with his parliamentary team to take on the Liberal government when the House of Commons resumes sitting next week.

“I couldn’t be more honoured and humbled by the support of our caucus today,” Mulcair said.

The leader — flatly rejected as the party’s long-term chief during a spring vote by rank-and-file members — has recently been fending off an internal push to oust him.

Before the Montreal meeting, multiple current and former MPs — who spoke to The Canadian Press on condition on anonymity for fear of openly criticizing the leader — said they wanted him out immediately.

No formal vote took place Wednesday on Mulcair’s leadership, said NDP caucus chair Charlie Angus, who acknowledged the party’s base has been frustrated following a disastrous October election.

He insisted changes will be made.

“We’ve been a little lost … we’ve been trying to find our sea legs,” Angus said. “We know that. So, for us, this meeting was about kicking our butts and saying ‘Come on, there are a lot of people who are out there who are waiting for us.'”

The party has been plagued by sliding poll numbers, shrinking fundraising figures and low morale.

So far, there are no official candidates to replace Mulcair.

It is important for the party to be united and give Mulcair a unanimous show of support as the party prepares to return to the House, said B.C. New Democrat MP Don Davies.

“It is a challenging time,” Davies said. “It is a year after the election and I don’t think we are where we would like to be … when you’re lower in the polls, there’s naturally people who are agitating for some change and those are important people to listen to.”

The NDP’s real job is to focus on holding the Liberals to account for the many promises they made in the last election, Davies added.

During the fall sitting of Parliament, the NDP plans to challenge the Liberal government on issues including climate change, health-care funding and indigenous affairs.

It intends to push for the repeal of Bill C-51, a controversial piece of anti-terrorism legislation passed by the previous government.

The Liberals have promised to amend the law, but New Democrats accuse the Trudeau government of moving too slowly on planned reforms.

“They promised that they were going to take out the most offensive parts of Bill C-51, they haven’t done it and we are the only ones who are going to be holding them to account,” Mulcair said.

It is challenging to pounce on the Trudeau Liberals during the first year of their mandate because Canadians want to give the benefit of the doubt to a fresh face, Mulcair said.

“We’ve been through this before,” Mulcair said during a morning speech to caucus. “But we have to believe that Canadians are going to start to take notice a little more this time.

“We’ve been through this before when Liberals steal our platform, steal our ideas … pretend they are on the left.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/thomas-mulcair-denies-reports-of-internal-ndp-caucus-turmoil/feed/2In Ottawa’s race to the middle, Liberals are way aheadhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ottawa-race-middle-liberals-way-ahead/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ottawa-race-middle-liberals-way-ahead/#commentsThu, 18 Aug 2016 17:31:05 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=913531From civil liberties to the environment, NATO and deficit spending, the opposition parties can't wrestle the middle away from the government

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Ralph Goodale makes a funding announcement during a visit to an immigrant holding centre in Laval, Que., Monday, August 15, 2016. Immigration holding facilities in Vancouver and Laval, Que., will be replaced as part of a $138-million overhaul intended to improve detention conditions for newcomers to Canada. (Graham Hughes/CP)

Minutes after the RCMP played a chilling video showing the black-clad, 24-year-old Aaron Driver pledging allegiance to ISIS, I spoke to his father, Wayne. By that time, his son had already detonated a homemade explosive device and died in a gunfire exchange with police. Wayne hadn’t seen the video before that moment, and he was reeling. “I didn’t have any thoughts, I just broke down crying,” he said. “Disbelief and shock set in right away and the more you listen, the more you look, you realize it’s your son, and, my God, what brought him this far? What could we have done differently to help him?”

If Wayne Driver is understandably bewildered by these questions, so too are most political leaders. Security, civil liberties and the war with radical Islam pose some of the defining questions of our times, but the answers are getting less clear. In the U.S., Donald Trump has turned them into a paranoid, ad-lib form of Republicanism, his latest idea being “extreme, extreme vetting” of immigrants. It’s like Trump has put the old PQ charter of values into a blender, super-sized it, and then chugged it down in front of the cameras. Here in Canada, the Liberal government is still trying to figure out its final position on Bill C-51, the controversial anti-terror law Stephen Harper passed, while the Conservatives and the NDP are both in the midst of full-blown identity crises—OK, let’s use the preferred euphemism, “leadership races”—so right now it’s hard to say what either actually believes in.

Speaking with the Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale this week, I got the sense that not a lot of substance will actually change. There will be parliamentary oversight of the security intelligence review committee, a few definitional changes to ensure civil disobedience is not criminalized, tweaks to the no-fly list, money for deradicalization programs and . . . that’s it. The more controversial issues, like dealing with the lower threshold for issuing a peace bond, will probably remain unchanged.

It is telling that the Liberals are no longer worried about the politics of the security issue. The mealy-mouthed position they took on Bill C-51 while in opposition—voting for it while promising to change it if elected—is actually paying off. They can now drift into the middle ground like some implacable Star Trek character, the Borg of Liberal Pragmatism, simultaneously absorbing the Conservatives’ core issue of security and the NDP’s stand for civil liberties. They’ve done it on all sorts of files, from the environment to NATO to deficit spending. It’s driving the other two parties nuts.

Desperate to ignite interest in their tepid leadership races, both opposition parties are searching for defining issues, but ones that don’t cede the political middle ground to the Liberals.

The NDP is dealing with the Avi Lewis-Naomi Klein inspired Leap Manifesto, which is a genuinely idealistic document about the economy, the environment and First Nations, and the closest thing we’ve seen in Canada to the Bernie Sanders movement. Young people like it. If Avi Lewis polishes his French and decides to enter the moribund NDP leadership contest, it would jolt the party back to life. Still, it’s high risk. The Leap Manifesto is the type of document that can define a protest movement, but ruin a political party, a kind of progressive Thelma and Louise road trip that is exhilarating and affirming, but ends up careening the NDP off a cliff.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are in the “shelter in place” position until the Donald Trump movement burns itself out. If it does. They have the double challenge of distancing themselves from Trump’s whiplash nativism while trying to warm up Stephen Harper’s ice-blue Reformism. The security issue was once an easy point of orientation, but the Liberals have taken that back. By tripling the boots on the ground in Iraq, putting up to 500 soldiers in Latvia to face off against Russia and now preparing to put a UN force in Africa, it’s getting hard for Conservatives to call the Liberals a bunch of appeasing wimps. Soon they are going have to complain about military overstretch. That will be a back flip.

If they get co-opted on security, the CPC will inevitably tack back to their core issue, the economy. That’s doesn’t give them a clear runway either. Conservatives still have to explain why stimulating a slow economy with deficit spending was good when they did it, but bad when Liberals do it. They don’t have a Leap Manifesto to deal with, but Maxime Bernier is proving to be a genuine disrupter. Pollsters and pundits may laugh at his long-shot-idea campaign, but Bernier promises to abolish supply management, privatize airports and lift foreign restrictions on all sorts of industries like telecoms. Conservative campaign manager Nick Kouvalis has pointed out that Bernier used to happily accept government pork for local industries, the kind of corporate welfare he now rails against, but at least Bernier has fresh ideas.

Political parties need to have coherent answers to difficult, even painful questions, the kind being asked by Wayne Driver about his son’s dark journey toward radicalism. It’s too early to say what the Conservatives and the NDP will stand for in the future, but they have to find a way to avoid being pushed to the fringes by a government that is only too happy to snap up their best ideas and paint them red.

But opposition politicians say the multiplatform campaign confirms the province is desperately selling something the public isn’t buying.

Phillips said the climate plan, which includes a multibillion-dollar carbon tax that kicks in Jan. 1., is far-reaching and complex.

“People need to know more about it,” Phillips told reporters at the legislature Tuesday.

“We as a government have a responsibility to communicate with Albertans exactly what we are making for changes.

“There are going to be a number of different programs and other initiatives that are moving forward as a result of this.”

The campaign is on top of $503,000 spent on a climate change ad rollout last year.

The new one will feature ads online, on TV, on radio, in movie houses, in print and in mailouts over the summer.

The 90-second video clip promises the plan will protect health and the environment while kickstarting the economy.

It has upbeat music along with shots of kayakers, cyclists, mountain goats, wind turbines, horses, puppies, mountain and riverscapes, bears, ducks, scientists, and solar panels.

Phillips dismissed suggestions the ad plan is a bid to change the narrative because the government’s message isn’t getting through.

“What I’ve been hearing is that there’s a tremendous optimism for diversifying the economy (and) all the new investments that are going to be coming in,” she said.

The climate change plan, announced last year by Notley and Phillips, is a multipronged approach to reduce Alberta’s carbon footprint and give it more environmental credibility when it pitches for national projects like pipelines to ports.

It will reduce methane emissions, curb oilsands emissions and phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030.

The first part of the climate plan was passed in the spring sitting, giving the province the legal licence to implement the carbon tax.

Gasoline will go up 4.49 cents a litre and natural gas will go up $1.01 gigajoule, raising an estimated $3 billion over 2017 and 2018.

The province estimates the average family will see their costs rise an extra $443 next year, while opposition politicians say the cost will be double that or more.

The money all goes to rebates for middle and low-income earners or is earmarked for green initiatives from transit projects to home retrofits.

Opposition politicians fought to amend the legislation in the spring sitting, saying, among other concerns, that the tax needs to be revenue neutral and the government needs to present studies on the economic impact of the tax.

Those amendments were defeated by Notley’s majority government.

Opponents have also argued a broad tax is particularly counterproductive at a time Alberta’s economy has hit a wall over low oil prices.

Progressive Conservative Leader Ric McIver said the key sticking point is the fact the government climate plan will slow the rate of greenhouse emissions over the next decade or so, but the actual amount of GHGs will still increase.

“The general public isn’t buying this,” said McIver.

“Their plan is taking a lot of jobs away from Albertans, taking a lot of money out of the economy, and isn’t going to do a blessed thing for the environment,” he said.

Wildrose environment critic Todd Loewen agreed.

“It’s a huge amount of money and it comes at a time when Albertans are hurting,” he said.

“Obviously if Albertans were loving this carbon tax, they wouldn’t spend this much money selling it.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/alberta-defends-4-4m-summer-ad-blitz-promoting-climate-change-plan/feed/3Cheri DiNovo to run for federal NDP leadershiphttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/cheri-dinovo-to-run-for-federal-ndp-leadership/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/cheri-dinovo-to-run-for-federal-ndp-leadership/#commentsTue, 07 Jun 2016 00:10:59 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=882549The Ontario New Democrat was first elected in a 2006 byelection in Toronto's Parkdale-High Park

]]>TORONTO – A veteran member of the Ontario legislature will become the first official candidate for leader of the federal New Democratic Party.

Cheri DiNovo told The Canadian Press on Monday night that she will declare her candidacy to replace Tom Mulcair as federal NDP leader in an announcement in her Toronto riding Tuesday morning.

DiNovo did not want to speak further about her candidacy in a brief phone conversation, saying she wants the media to attend her announcement at the Roncesvalles United Church so she can ‘flesh it out’ for everyone. It’s not clear if she will immediately resign her seat in the provincial legislature.

DiNovo, a United Church minister, was first elected in a 2006 byelection, taking Toronto’s inner-city Parkdale-High Park riding from the Liberals when Gerard Kennedy resigned to run federally.

She is a champion of social justice issues, campaigning successfully to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code to include gender identity and expression, and introducing a bill to give same sex couples the same parental rights as male-female couples.

DiNovo also convinced the Liberal government to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act to recognize post-traumatic stress disorder as being work-related for police, firefighters and paramedics, after introducing four separate private members’ bills over seven years.

She was critical of the Ontario New Democrats for moving too far to the political centre in an attempt to get votes in the 2014 provincial election, and was one of the first to openly call for Mulcair’s resignation following the NDP’s third-place finish in the 2015 federal campaign.

There are no other declared candidates to replace Mulcair, who announced his resignation in May after 52 per cent of delegates at the New Democrats’ post-election convention in Edmonton voted for a leadership review.

The voting to select the new NDP leader will take place in the fall of 2017.

In order to run, would be candidates will be required to provide a registration fee of $30,000 while the spending cap has been set at $1.5 million.

]]>EDMONTON – Members of Alberta’s Wildrose Opposition have apologized for comparing the NDP government’s carbon tax to a famine caused by Soviet government policies in Ukraine during the 1930s that killed millions of people.

The article posted on a blog says socialist collective mentality has failed around the world and the carbon tax will give people an incentive not to invest in Alberta.

“The Holodomor was an atrocious and intentional act that saw the deaths of millions upon millions of Ukrainians,” reads the apology released by the Wildrose party on Friday.

“Any interpretation of the column collaborated on by the nine Wildrose MLAs as dismissing the Holodomor as a horrendous act was completely unintentional, and we unreservedly apologize.

“Out of an abundance of caution and respect for Ukrainian Albertans, the post was removed and a revised version has been posted.”

The post quoted American economist Thomas Sowell, who wrote that people do more for their own good than for the common good.

The Wildrose article refers to the famine, during which the Soviet government forced Ukrainian farmers to give up their own land to join collective farms.

“The same situation existed in Russia during the 1930s resulting in the starvation of nearly six million people that lived on some of the most fertile land on the planet,” reads the post.

“The Alberta government’s movement to remove incentives through taxation in the name of ”progressive policies“ is in fact taking Alberta backwards.”

Economic Development Minister Deron Bilous called the blog post offensive and said Wildrose leader Brian Jean should denounce the actions of the nine members.

Bilous, who is of Ukrainian descent, said more than 300,000 Albertans are survivors of the Holodomor or are descendants of those who suffered.

“When the Holodomor is used in such a callous way, without recognizing the pain this causes people of Ukrainian descent throughout the world and at home, we all have a responsibility to stand up and say it is not acceptable,” he said in a statement.

“Generations of Ukrainians overcame incredible hardships for a new start in Alberta. They and their descendants helped build this province and they worked hard to get recognition for Holodomor. I want them to always have the respect they’ve earned and to honour our survivors and the memory of those we lost.”

Alberta’s carbon tax comes into effect on Jan. 1 and is to be included in the price of all fuels that emit greenhouse gases.

Money raised by the levy is to be used to reward families, businesses and communities that take steps to lower their emissions.

]]>OTTAWA – Veteran British Columbia MP Nathan Cullen says he won’t run to succeed Tom Mulcair as the leader of the federal New Democrats, preferring to concentrate on electoral reform and climate change.

Cullen, first elected in 2004 to the sprawling northwestern B.C. riding of Skeena-Bulkley Valley, ran against Mulcair in the party’s 2012 leadership race, ultimately coming in third behind runner-up Brian Topp.

He said his decision to forgo another run came after much thought and discussion with family friends and supporters.

Three factors came foremost: “What is best for me and my family, what is best for the people I represent in northwestern British Columbia and what this party that I love so much needs and deserves right now,” he said.

Cullen came to the conclusion he has other work to focus on.

“One aspect of this decision today — and it’s a good aspect for me — is that it allows me the total commitment to the process … on helping create and form with Canadians a new electoral system,” he said.

He also cited the need to work on climate change.

The party has opted for an extended leadership race to replace Mulcair and expects to choose a new leader sometime in the fall of 2017, with the nomination period set to begin next month.

Mulcair was flatly rejected as the party’s long-term leader at a convention in Edmonton last month, when more than half the delegates voted for a leadership race.

In order to run, hopefuls will be required to provide a registration fee of $30,000 while the spending cap has been set at $1.5 million.

The party suffered a sharp rejection in the October election, losing more than half its seats and dropping back to third party status.

Cullen said, though, that will change.

“We will be ready again to form government again in just a few short years,” he said.

]]>Debate rages into extra time over carbon tax in Albertahttp://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/debate-rages-into-extra-time-over-carbon-tax-in-alberta/
Fri, 03 Jun 2016 01:24:19 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=881865Legislative sitting scheduled to end Thursday, but will continue next week as opposition proposes amendments to bill

]]>EDMONTON – The spring sitting of the Alberta legislature is going into overtime as debate rages over the government’s climate change bill.

The sitting was supposed to end Thursday, but will continue next week as opposition members are proposing amendments to the bill.

They have particular concerns over the cost and implementation of the multibillion-dollar carbon tax.

The tax begins Jan. 1 and would increase the cost of heating bills and gasoline to encourage Albertans to go greener.

Alberta Party Leader Greg Clark said he believes the government needs to define where the tax money is going to go.

“There’s a pool of money – $3.4 billion – in the carbon tax, which will be spent in some undefined way. That’s really troubling,” said Clark.

“I need some more information before I can vote in favour of this bill.”

The Wildrose fought, and lost, an amendment Thursday to stop cabinet from raising the levy unilaterally in the future.

Wildrose house leader Nathan Cooper said more amendments are coming next week “to bring some accountability to this piece of legislation.”

Said Cooper, “We’ll expect certainly a number of late nights next week.”

The bill is at the stage where members can propose changes and speak to them at length, which can tie the legislature up in long days of debate.

Government house leader Brian Mason said he hopes to deal with all the amendments so that the government doesn’t have to invoke its power to cut off debate to pass the bill.

“I certainly don’t want to bring in time allocation,” said Mason.

“I hope we can deal with all of their amendments and all of their other motions to delay passage of the bill without doing so.

“We’re certainly going to come back next week for a little while at least.”

Progressive Conservative leader Ric McIver said he wants to see the carbon tax made neutral, meaning the money raised by the carbon tax is offset by tax breaks in other areas.

“The carbon tax is going to change everything,” said McIver.

“It’s going to make the way Albertans buy everything for all time more expensive. To cut short debate on something as far reaching as the carbon tax I think would be ill-advised.”

The government used its majority Thursday to defeat the opposition motions. Mason said the bill is carefully crafted and is good as it stands.

The tax is part of a broader plan announced by Premier Rachel Notley’s government last year to reduce Alberta’s carbon footprint both as the right thing to do environmentally and as a way to build up goodwill as it lobbies for new oil infrastructure such as pipelines.

The government is also capping oilsands emissions and phasing out coal-fired electricity.

The current bill before the house focuses on the carbon tax plan.

Under the terms of the bill two-thirds of Albertans, those in the middle to lower-income brackets, would receive full or partial rebates against the tax.

The rest of the money would be used to fund green initiatives and projects, including public transit.

Between the carbon tax and a fee on large industrial emitters, Alberta expects to raise $9.6 billion over the next five years.

Pages and staff prepare the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada, December 2, 2015. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

OTTAWA – The secretive committee that polices House of Commons spending has decided it has “no choice” but to appeal a Federal Court decision in the NDP satellite office saga.

Last week, the New Democrats cheered the decision to allow an affidavit challenged by the attorney general, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the committee, known as the board of internal economy.

In the affidavit, University of Sherbrooke professor Maxime Saint-Hilaire says the controversy is not a matter of parliamentary privilege and suggests the courts may indeed have jurisdiction in the matter.

Heather Bradley, the director of communications for the Commons Speaker, says the board believes the court “erred in law and created a dangerous precedent” by allowing the affidavit to be admitted.

NDP national director Karl Belanger says the ruling was clear, and suggests the Liberals are wasting taxpayers’ money in a “petty, mean-spirited political vendetta.”

The New Democrats are using party funds to fight the board’s order that 68 MPs — many who were defeated in October — repay $2.7 million in parliamentary funds that went towards pooled offices in Montreal, Toronto and Quebec City.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/secretive-commons-board-appeals-court-finding-in-ndp-satellite-saga/feed/1NDP set to name Tom Mulcair’s replacement in fall 2017http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ndp-set-to-name-tom-mulcairs-replacement-in-fall-2017/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ndp-set-to-name-tom-mulcairs-replacement-in-fall-2017/#commentsSun, 15 May 2016 20:55:24 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=873953NDP's federal council met to review terms for leadership race, which will pick a new leader two years before next election

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair addresses delegates following a confidence vote during the party’s weekend convention Saturday, April 13, 2013 in Montreal. The NDP’s federal council is meeting in Ottawa today as the party looks to set the terms for its upcoming leadership race. (Paul Chiasson/CP)

OTTAWA – The federal NDP has opted for an extended leadership race to replace Tom Mulcair, as it looks to name a new leader between September and October of 2017.

The decision comes after around 100 New Democrats from across Canada gathered at an Ottawa hotel Sunday to carve out the terms for the race — a process launched after Mulcair was flatly rejected as the party’s long-term leader at a convention in Edmonton last month.

The NDP’s national director, Karl Belanger, said members of the party’s governing body agreed on Sunday that more time is needed to assess where the party is at and to allow for potential candidates to organize and set up campaigns.

“Councillors felt that by providing that longer window it would provide better opportunities for outreach and fundraising and for the party in general,” Belanger said.

In order to run, hopefuls will be required to provide a registration fee of $30,000 while the spending cap has been set at $1.5 million.

“Council has given potential candidates a time frame that will allow for a fair and competitive race, while giving enough time for the new leader to prepare for the general election,” said NDP president Marit Stiles.

The party brass did not set a precise date for a leadership vote within the fall 2017 time frame.

There are many challenges for the NDP as it looks to replace Mulcair, including the current debt load of around $5 million — a legacy of the marathon federal election that punted the party back to third party status in the Commons.

For his part, Mulcair has said it is unlikely he will run again in the 2019 federal election. He has yet to weigh in on the timeline announced by the federal council.

As the NDP eyes its future and a lengthy leadership race, fundraising is sure to be a concern.

A letter from the party’s president, vice-presidents and treasurer distributed ahead of Sunday’s meeting noted council should consider the financial impact of the race and its effect on national and provincial fundraising efforts.

Belanger said these concerns were addressed by council, adding administrative fees have been increased to 25 per cent — up from 15 per cent in the 2012 race — meaning 25 cents will go to the party for every dollar a campaign pulls in.

Recent figures released by Elections Canada showed the party struggled in its first quarter and only collected $1.3 million.

McMaster political science professor Peter Graefe said the timing of the leadership race will have “significant impacts” on the party’s money-making ability.

“Mulcair is going out the door and you’re mostly raising money on the … back of your leader so it is going to be a bit complicated from that point of view,” Graefe said.

The NDP can’t begin raising significant amounts of money until two years out from the next election, he added.

“I don’t think they are likely to go bankrupt if you like but … they’ll still be paying off these debts by the time a new leader is chosen so that’s going to make it difficult for them to be in a competitive position going into the next federal election.”

Graefe said the New Democrats were likely influenced by the timing of the Conservative leadership race, set to be held in May 2017.

“They want the Conservatives to choose their leader so that they can make their choice … in the context of who the other two leaders are going to be,” he said.

In addition to weakened fundraising efforts following October’s disappointing election result, the NDP is also using resources to foot a legal bill over its satellite office saga now playing out in Federal Court.

The party launched this fight after the Commons board of internal economy ordered 68 NDP MPs — many of whom went down to defeat last October — to repay $2.7 million in parliamentary funds that went towards office operations in Montreal, Toronto and Quebec City.

The NDP has long denied that it used parliamentary funds for non-parliamentary purposes.

Mulcair remains personally on the hook for a bill of more than $400,000.

]]>OTTAWA – The satellite office controversy finally landed Friday in Federal Court as the New Democrats wrestle with an issue that has been sapping the party’s political batteries since long before Tom Mulcair’s bid to become prime minister.

The party — already some $5 million in debt following the longest election campaign in modern Canadian history — is using its own funds to fight a decision made in 2014 by the secretive all-party Commons committee that polices parliamentary spending.

The board of internal economy ordered 68 NDP MPs — many of whom went down to defeat last October — to repay $2.7 million in parliamentary funds that went towards office operations in Montreal, Toronto and Quebec City.

The NDP has long denied that it used parliamentary funds for non-parliamentary purposes.

“The concern is, were taxpayers’ money (meant) for parliamentary funds used for non-parliamentary purposes, and I have asked people, ‘Where was the evidence?'” NDP House leader Peter Julian said in an interview.

“Everyone has admitted to me there was never a shred of evidence produced. That is an important point. What that means is the resources were being used for parliamentary purposes.”

Julian said the party would still like to see the attorney general refer the matter to the Supreme Court, to allow it to determine whether the board of internal economy can be subject to a court decision.

“This is a decision that can only be taken at the Supreme Court level,” he said. “The former government and the current government have refused to refer it to the Supreme Court, which I think is bad news.”

Julian said the government’s failure to refer the jurisdictional issue to the top court means the process will be dragged out in Federal Court, costing more taxpayer dollars.

In March, The Canadian Press reported that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has already vetoed an out-of-court settlement in the long-running dispute.

At the time, Liberal House leader Dominic LeBlanc insisted Trudeau had nothing to do with it, despite multiple sources who said it was the prime minister himself who put an end to negotiations.

“The board of internal economy is the only body responsible for addressing the NDP’s satellite offices and this misuse of public funds,” LeBlanc said, adding the Liberals never contemplated settling the matter out of court.

“It is the NDP who decided to begin frivolous judicial proceedings and subsequently asked for settlement negotiations,” he said. “We have always been of the view that the NDP misused public funds and should therefore reimburse taxpayers.”

New Democrats strongly disagree funds were misused and believe Commons administrators also wildly inflated the amount of money contributed from their office budgets towards the salaries of satellite employees.

Former Toronto MP Dan Harris was originally on the hook for more than $140,000, but late last year was effectively exonerated by the Commons’ chief financial officer.

Ex-Montreal MP Isabelle Morin had been ordered to repay $169,117 in salary paid to an employee, but her bill was slashed to below $30,000 because the employee worked most of the time in her riding office, not the Montreal party office.

Mulcair, who will be leaving as party leader once a successor is named, remains personally on the hook for a bill of more than $400,000.

The NDP’s federal council — the party’s governing body, made up of about 100 people — is set to meet on Sunday as it looks to carve out the rules surrounding the party’s upcoming leadership race.

A letter from the party’s president, vice-presidents and treasurer — obtained by The Canadian Press — said the council should consider the likely financial impact of the race, given factors that include the party’s current debtload.

Recent figures released by Elections Canada also paint a bleak picture of the party’s fundraising efforts in its first quarter, when it collected just $1.3 million.

]]>How young Indigenous politicians are leading Manitoba’s NDPhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/young-indigenous-politicians-are-leading-the-manitoba-ndp/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/young-indigenous-politicians-are-leading-the-manitoba-ndp/#commentsThu, 28 Apr 2016 10:00:58 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=865123'Our people have their voice'

From left to right, Lathlin, Fontaine and Kinew. (Photograph by Thomas Fricke)

The mood was mainly sombre and the cash-bar business was mainly brisk as Manitoba New Democrats gathered April 19 in one of the mammoth RBC Convention Centre’s smaller rooms, to bid adieu to 17 years of NDP rule and Premier Greg Selinger, and watch the Progressive Conservatives’ crushing victories keep rolling in.

The young people clad in orange #ImWithWab shirts were in a more festive mood, cheering the video screen as broadcaster Wab Kinew was shown winning an inner-city Winnipeg seat. There was a similar buzz around fellow new MLA Nahanni Fontaine as she hugged her way through the crowd, clad all in white on her party’s grimmest night in decades.

There were two historic outcomes of the Manitoba election. Brian Pallister’s Tories captured 40 of 57 Manitoba seats, the party’s best result ever and the biggest provincial win in more than a century—a decisive mandate for lower-cost, leaner and business-friendly government. Meanwhile, amid the decimation of the NDP was something significant and also unprecedented. Four of the now-Opposition party’s 14 members are First Nations, a uniquely high proportion for an established party. With a race to replace Selinger coming, members have high hopes the NDP leadership could make further history.

Fontaine insists she wore white that night just because it looked nice, rather than as a nod to new beginnings. But she’s somebody who routinely finds deep meaning and symbol throughout life and daily activities. When she first announced her run for the NDP, she clutched an eagle feather. A generation earlier, one was in the hand of NDP opposition member Elijah Harper as he quietly protested the lack of Indigenous consultation for the Meech Lake accord. That 1990 act of legislative defiance was key in derailing Brian Mulroney’s attempted constitutional overhaul.

It’s fitting this new political core forms in Manitoba, whose rapidly growing Indigenous population makes up 16.7 per cent of the provincial total, four times the national average. Poverty and suicide are epidemic in its northern reserves. The cries for an inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls reached peak volume after Tina Fontaine’s murder in Winnipeg in 2014. And the capital city—with Canada’s largest urban Indigenous community—continues to tackle the sting of systemic racism, as the city’s first Metis mayor, Brian Bowman, declared 2016 a year of reconciliation. In Winnipeg’s predominantly Aboriginal and predominantly poor North End, the community’s latest weekly anti-violence gathering, Meet Me at the Bell Tower, had in the crowd at least two of these Indigenous MLAs: Kinew and Kevin Chief, the now-former jobs minister.

Nahanni Fontaine, the ousted government’s adviser on Indigenous women and herself a survivor of sexual abuse, was joined by families of missing and murdered women at her campaign office before joining the NDP wake on election night. As they huddled tightly in a circle, Fontaine vowed to continue supporting the relatives, even as her new job as MLA requires her to expand her concerns to matters like potholes and health care. “How that looks, I’m not sure,” she tells Maclean’s, a couple of days later, wiping away tears. The polls had made it clear to Fontaine and others the NDP was bound for opposition, but if the party must rebuild, having so much Indigenous knowledge and experience around her party’s smaller table brings, to her, one of the best possible foundations.

“I just feel that we’re at such a beautiful but hard time in Manitoba, in Canada. And I say beautiful because our people are reclaiming their space. Our people have their voice,” Fontaine says. “And yet you juxtapose that: there are still real issues. The suicide epidemic across Canada. That’s a sense of hopelessness and dislocation—I was once there in my life. I realize the dichotomy in which we’re in: it’s a beautiful time, and yet the struggle is [profound].”

The downsized caucus met for the first time April 26; along with two Filipino MLAs and one Sikh, the NDP is half non-white. Amanda Lathlin of The Pas was elected in a by-election last year as Manitoba’s first Indigenous female MLA—now along with her “Aboriginal sister” and fellow single mother Fontaine, and a newly elected Liberal member in the north, there are three. “We are reaching that goal to have our people be the key players, the frontline players now,” Lathlin says.

Politically, as well as historically, things managed to fall into place to create this unusual moment. After an internal collapse in faith in Selinger, when he broke a promise and raised the PST, several NDP veterans chose not to run again, opening up inner-city seats for Kinew and Fontaine. That coincided with the arrival of the “third real wave” since Indigenous people were first allowed to go to university in the 1960s, says Niigaan Sinclair, the Native studies department head of the University of Manitoba. In the first wave, Aboriginal leaders became lawyers, like Phil Fontaine and Murray Sinclair, chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee and now a senator (and the academic’s father). In the 1980s, people became doctors and teachers. “Now we have people who are entering all sectors, public and private sectors of Canada,” Niigaan Sinclair says. “It’s just the time.”

In the federal election, frustration with Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and the rise of Idle No More sent Indigenous voter turnout surging in cities and the North, helping Liberals nearly sweep Winnipeg. Yet for all the talk of more Indigenous representation helping with voter engagement, provincial turnout was down in several Indigenous-rich areas, Sinclair notes. Time may have come for the rising political class, but still many don’t feel involved.

With the defeat of Aboriginal and northern affairs minister Eric Robinson, a provincial politician since 1993, Manitoba’s First Nations MLAs are all in their 30s and 40s—without living memories of residential schools. (Lathlin calls herself an “intergenerational survivor.”) However, the current Manitoba NDP president is Ovide Mercredi, former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, who rebuffed past offers to run federally and provincially before accepting this new role at Selinger’s urging. He sees his past AFN role now as that of “grievance leader.” Even in opposition, Indigenous MLAs are in the system and will be listened to, Mercredi says. “You can’t be totally ignored. In my case, they would say, ‘You’re just talking rhetoric again; there you go condemning the country.’ ”

While Selinger touted his government as a leader on reconciliation and the missing and murdered women file, Pallister—whose caucus includes two Metis members—has made few promises on his direction, and never embraced plans for a national inquiry. His Tories had been critical of Manitoba’s practice of placing children in provincial care in hotels, and before the election joined the legislature’s unanimous backing of a bill that commits Manitoba to act on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s recommendations.

“They may pick and choose what they implement,” Kinew says. “To be honest, it would probably be the same pick-and-choose around any political party forming government. But I personally believe Murray Sinclair is smarter than all of us, so maybe we should follow his roadmap.”

As Kinew went door-to-door on the campaign’s final day, he met A.J. Chemin, a nurse who owes his education to Metis organization support. He wasn’t likely to vote NDP because of distaste for Selinger, but wished Kinew well: “It’s nice to see us getting into the field, finally. Makes us proud.”

Kinew began his campaign as an NDP star, but opponents’ airing of his misogynistic and crude past tweets and rap lyrics brought him the “controversial candidate” moniker. After besting the Liberal leader for his Winnipeg seat—in a mainly non-Indigenous district—the former CBC Radio host is touted as a possible contender for the NDP helm, but acknowledges he has much to learn about politics and still has long-term goals of running federally (after rebuffing NDP and Liberal offers last year) to pursue constitutional change. A more probable and less contentious option to replace Selinger is Kevin Chief, who has served as a minister and has wide respect for his organizing chops.

Kinew says he was skeptical about how far someone like himself could go until Barack Obama did it, though he saw the Tea Party rise in response. Not everybody in Manitoba so embraces the ideas of reconciliation. “On one hand it will increase the symbolic power and the inspiration that comes along with it, but I think there will also be an attendant increase in racism and backlash,” he told Maclean’s.

Carole James, a Metis woman, led the British Columbia NDP for six years until 2011, while one of Manitoba’s first premiers, John Norquay, had Metis ancestry. But a major provincial party leader of First Nations origin could be ground-breaking, coming from a community that for most of Canadian history didn’t have voting rights. That would put into contention the chance for a Manitoban Indigenous premier. “It’s been years and years in the making, and we’re at this historical moment where people’s spirits and minds and emotions are open,” Fontaine says. She says she’d be shocked if the party’s next leader isn’t Indigenous. A lot can happen in four years of politics, and it’s not just Manitobans and Indigenous Canadians who should be watching what this new political crew can accomplish.

Jennifer Hollett at the NDP Convention in Edmonton on April 9, 2016. (Jenna Marie Wakani/NDP)

Jennifer Hollett, a former TV personality, was the New Democratic Party’s candidate in the riding of University–Rosedale in the 2015 federal election.

The last time I was in Edmonton, strangers were honking horns, welcoming me into their apartment buildings, and hugging me with glee. It was a year ago. Like many New Democrats across the country, I had made my way to Alberta to help get out the vote in a provincial election where the NDP was likely to win. Not only did we win, we went from four seats to a majority government in “Wild Rose country.”

The next day I was back in Toronto, knocking on doors as a federal NDP candidate while pundits were trying to make sense of this unthinkable win, assuring Canadians that provincial politics have little impact on federal politics. At the doors in University–Rosedale, people were smiling—smirking, really, with pride. While it was too early in 2015 for people to say whom they planned to vote for federally (other than not voting for Harper, I was repeatedly assured), the conversation would end with a heartfelt congrats. The belief gap was shrinking. If Alberta could vote NDP, maybe the rest of the country could too.

So it felt good to be back in Alberta for the NDP’s 2016 convention. Friends of mine who work in the legislature offered me a personal tour over lunch on the first day. The building was breathtaking, the history humbling, and it was ours. Even a year later, I needed to touch it to believe it. And while I hope someone is writing a case study, thesis, or book on how the hell it happened, simply put, Albertans were fed up. They wanted change, so they voted for the only party that truly represented change: the NDP.

Change is a funny word. The federal Liberals campaigned on “real change” and the NDP on “ready for change.” Like any talking point repeated ad nauseam, it became meaningless jibber-jabber. But 2015 was indeed a change campaign, and the Liberals managed to out-change the party that’s supposed to represent change (that’s the NDP, in case you forgot).

As a candidate, you need to know why you’re running. It’s the most frequent question asked at the doors, and by the media. It’s also what you come home to and confront during your 14-hour day after 14-hour day. I entered politics to change it. Growing up in St. Catharines, Ont., in a non-political family, raised by a single mom, I didn’t feel politics was a part of my life. Like many, if not most Canadians, government felt like something floating above my life, happening to me. I decided to run with the core belief that if I could insert myself into the democratic process, hopefully I could change it, making it real and accessible to more people—especially women and youth—in the process. I was hoping to humanize politics, with a party that puts people first. I remain dedicated to this pursuit.

Federal NDP leader Tom Mulcair waves to the crowd after his speech during the 2016 NDP Federal Convention in Edmonton Alta, on Sunday, April 10, 2016. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson

Political conventions are usually predictable, if not boring. Party faithful come together, show off their knowledge of the rules of procedure, wonk out over policy, have a few too many drinks and remember campaigns of elections past.

This year was different.

While New Democrats often joke that we’re used to losing, 2015 was colossal. Forming government was within reach, and we were serious contenders. We ran an incredible slate of candidates, with a progressive and principled platform. Heading into the election, momentum was on our side. But the national campaign failed to make the case for the NDP. Instead, supporters were left holding signs to “Stop Harper” and we did just that, by sending voters to the Liberals. Despite this, I have yet to meet a New Democrat or a Canadian who doesn’t say, “I like Tom.” Tom Mulcair’s performance as leader of the official Opposition gained him and our party a lot of admiration and respect. One can only imagine this loss probably hit him the hardest. So New Democrats headed into the convention with mixed emotions. A group of delegates publicly supported Tom; others campaigned for a leadership review. The majority of us politely heard both sides out with tender hearts, saying nothing.

Party members in Toronto were particularly sensitive to the failures of the federal campaign. For us, it was a three-peat. In 2014, we were part of a provincial and mayoral race that played it safe. We campaigned by watering down our leaders and language, writing ballot-box questions that other candidates could answer. As we tried to grow, we lost our authenticity. We can’t afford to do this again.

So there was a large soft vote at the convention that wanted to know how Tom and the NDP were going to change moving forward. Surely there must be lessons learned from the federal campaign, good and bad. There was a big appetite for some real talk—the type of no-nonsense, no-apologies speeches and ideas that have drawn many NDP volunteers down south to work on Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.

The best moment in Tom’s speech was the opening line. “No pressure,” he joked. It was real, honest and in the moment. Unfortunately, most of the speech morphed into a script, memories of the federal campaign that lacked feeling. He made the case for the NDP, and earned several standing ovations by tapping into our shared values, but failed to make a strong enough case for why him, and offered no plan or vision for moving forward.

Searching for change, delegates were excited when they saw an opportunity for grassroots dialogue around working toward a non-polluting economy as proposed in the Leap Manifesto, while equally ecstatic when Rachel Notley made her case for workers, health care, and education in Alberta. This is the work of New Democrats—figuring out how we can come together, fighting for workers and the environment.

Former Ontario New Democratic Party leader Stephen Lewis speaks during the 2016 NDP Federal Convention in Edmonton Alberta, April 9, 2016. Jason Franson for Maclean’s Magazine.

Former Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis delivered the following remarks at the NDP policy convention in Edmonton.

Tom Mulcair, Members of the Federal Caucus, Distinguished Delegates: I feel privileged to be at a podium that was occupied by Rachel Notley. When I heard her recite the extraordinary achievements of the first few months of government, my mind went back to a campaign in Saskatchewan in the mid-fifties, when I was lucky enough to travel with Tommy Douglas as he recited the same kind of litany of achievements, and I thought to myself ‘what lovely historical continuity’, from Tommy’s days then to Rachel’s days now, and how much the democratic left has brought to the social and political culture of Canada.

I approach this podium in ebullient frame of mind. In fact, I’m in such good spirits that it’s positively indecent. I realize of course that my demeanour is entirely out-of-whack … after all, we suffered a crushing setback in the federal election. I should be brooding, gloomy, curmudgeonly, sour … all the symptoms of demoralizing defeat.

But I’m none of those things. I am, truly, insufferably buoyant. And there are two reasons why. First, I’ve been through it all before. When I was Provincial Leader in Ontario, I led the party to three successive second or third place finishes; I’ve often said that my tenure as Leader was marked by transcendental futility. With great respect, by comparison, Tom Mulcair is a rank amateur.

Second, the Liberals have already begun to fray. That doesn’t mean the bloom is off the Justin rose. It will last for a while longer … he’s a Prime Minister of amiable disposition and appearance. Sure, he’s riding high in the polls today, but that’s the most ephemeral thing in the world. The test comes on policy not aesthetics. And predictably, the Liberals are already shuffling backwards into the precincts of ignominy where they so comfortably reside.

I must admit, as I launch into my remarks, that this is a difficult speech to make. I’m not at all sure that I’ve gauged the atmosphere accurately. I want to set out, very selectively — I say selectively because you can’t possibly cover everything — a number of issues where the approach, the analysis, the policy of the NDP differs profoundly from that of the Liberal Government. This isn’t a matter of some minute repositioning of the NDP to the left of the Liberals. This is a matter of fundamentals. We differ from the liberals on so many issues in so many ways that there’s a world to conquer. I don’t get this stuff about the blurring and meshing of the so-called centre-left.
Allow me, on your behalf, to count some of the ways.

First, feminism. It is a huge pleasure to have a Prime Minister who unselfconsciously calls himself a feminist. And the clever use of the phrase “It’s 2015” has now entered the lexicon of political memorabilia. But we have a message for the Prime Minister: feminism is a vacant construct without a child care program across Canada.

You don’t provide child care with a limited financial transfer to individual families. You provide child care as a matter of well-funded public policy, with spaces for all who need them and trained early childhood educators to staff them. In terms of social policy, there’s arguably nothing more important for this country at this moment. Someone has to tell the Prime Minister that the use of feminism has a hypocritical ring when the women of Canada, who play the central role in the raising of children, are denied the child care to which they are entitled as of right.

Second, electoral reform. The Prime Minister has said, ad nauseam, that we will never again fight a Canadian election based on the system of ‘first past the post’. Bravo. Canadians, in various opinion surveys, have indicated a significant plurality in favour of change. And the change everyone is talking about is proportional representation.

But there’s an ominous, unprincipled cloud emerging. In the guarded, cautious language employed by the Prime Minister it becomes clear, ever-so-clear, that there will be a variation on the present electoral process, but the variation will protect and benefit the Government.
You don’t need prophetic vision to know that we’re about to experience one of those brazenly cynical political moments: The sonorous sounds of desirable change will mask the self-serving manipulation of desirable change. It would appear that something called ranked ballots now has the inner track in the mind of the government, and to use Ed Broadbent’s evocative phrase, it would be like the ‘first past the post’ system on steroids. But it would be conveyed as qualitative change.

I could say, “how disappointing”. Electoral reform is an issue whose time has come. Proportional representation cries out for implementation. But whom are we kidding? Do we really think that the government will relinquish the cozy asylum of political advantage? This is a fight we have to win: it should consume our energies.

Third, Bill C-51. Here’s the nemesis if ever there was one. This piece of hoked-up anti-terror legislation, so excessive in tone and content, so contemptuous of civil liberties, so effectively lacerated during the course of the election campaign, is apparently sticking around, largely in its present form, to live another day.

Our Prime Minister, having promised significant changes to the bill, is again subsiding into the shadows of incrementalism. You see, he didn’t mistakenly support the bill, and then scramble for redemption by suggesting there would be amendments. The Prime Minister truly and fundamentally agrees with the bill, and will offer only the most cosmetic shifts in wording and nuance.

You have to smile, a grim tight-lipped smile. Liberals never disappoint.

Fourth, healthcare. Herein lies one of the most distressing gaps in the budget. There is no provision for a re-designed funding formula for healthcare into the future. I remember all the way back to the Charlottetown Accord, when another survey of Canadians, attempting to identify our defining characteristic, revealed, overwhelmingly, that it was healthcare. That’s what Canadians most cared about. And I daresay, the same sentiments would be expressed today.

It’s our issue … from Tommy Douglas to Roy Romanow, it’s our issue. We cannot allow it to be depreciated or trifled with. Modern, sophisticated economies, do not regard health as a soft sector. Public health lies at the very heart of the international Sustainable Development Goals; goals meant to govern public policy for the next fifteen years; goals effectively ratified by every one of the 193 member states of the United Nations, Canada of course included.

It is now finally understood, worldwide, that resources for health are the sine qua non of a civilized society, and the foundation of economic growth.

We have so much ground yet to cover. The Liberal pledge for homecare appears to have been abandoned, and universal pharmacare is nowhere to be seen. Those are programs that we must pursue as though life depended on it because, in fact, life does depend on it.

Fifth, international trade agreements. The economist, Joseph Stiglitz recently said that he’d met with Chrystia Freeland, the Liberal Minister for International Trade, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January. Now just to provide the context — and setting Stiglitz aside for a moment — the World Economic Forum is a gathering, overwhelmingly, of multinational corporate leadership with a sprinkling of politicians, and Bill Gates types, who engage in a protracted orgy of self-congratulation about how they collectively save the world.

People who attend are not what you would call left-of-centre. Stiglitz is an anomaly. He apparently pressed on Chrystia Freeland the negative consequences of signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and according to Stiglitz she seemed to understand.

Poor Joseph. How was he to know that he was taken down the Trans-Pacific path? Less than two weeks later, the Minister signed the TPP in New Zealand in the presence of twelve Pacific Rim partners. It was said to be ceremonial. It is said that extensive consultations will take place across Canada before there’s a House of Commons vote.

Is there anyone in this hall who thinks the TPP won’t be formally endorsed by the government of Canada? The irony is that with both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders coming out against the TPP, it may not even be embraced by the United States.

And rightly so. The TPP, as with so many other current international trade agreements, results in the loss of jobs — a possible loss of 60,000 projected for Canada — and the Investor State Dispute provisions put at risk Canada’s autonomy as a democratic state. Foreign corporations, were they to claim unfair treatment, can effectively bypass Canadian laws and seek compensation from an international tribunal. And there is no appeal. These are ridiculous provisions; the ugly quintessence of corporate capitalism.

But that’s not all. There is an even more pernicious aspect at work. As I learned, painfully, over the years involved with HIV/AIDS, one of the greatest benefits of these trade agreements is conferred on the brand-name drug companies. They negotiate and receive preferential patent privileges that undermine the manufacture of equivalent generic drugs. For the pharmaceutical industry, the trade agreements are a financial bonanza. For impoverished citizens of developing countries, fighting communicable and non-communicable disease, they can be and often are a disaster. For countries like Canada, they will inevitably mean an increase in prescription drug prices.

No Government of Canada should lend itself to the knee-jerk signing of the TPP. No Government of Canada, in this day and age, should embrace the discordant siren song of free trade.

Sixth: Arms sales. What in heaven’s name possesses the Liberal government to consummate the sale of light-armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia? It reveals so much about this government, so much that cries out for an aggressive political response.

The arms sale shows an astonishing contempt for human rights. Not only has the Government of Saudi Arabia recently been excoriated by the United Nations for the conduct of war in Yemen … the wholesale and indiscriminate slaughter of civilian populations; but it’s also a country where beheadings of dissidents rivals the madness of ISIL. There is absolutely no guarantee that the weapons in question won’t be used, at some point, to assault the Shia minority within Saudi Arabia. We’re talking about a regime whose hands are drenched in blood.

And of course that’s not all. The sale also directly contradicts stated Canadian policy. We’re not supposed to be sending armaments to countries that have a ‘persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens’. Saudi Arabia is the embodiment of the meaning of the word “violations”. And the government of Canada refuses to release its so-called assessment of the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. So much for the newly-minted policy of transparency.

But perhaps what is most offensive and revealing in all of this is the proposition, oft-stated by the Foreign Minister, that the contract is sacrosanct: it can’t be broken. We know that Stephane Dion is a nice fellow: he must be privately writhing with the disingenuous guff he has to disgorge. We’re in the earliest stages of this sale, and the sale is overseen by the government … what do you mean you can’t break the contract? What you mean is that you won’t break the contract, and with the greatest respect, that’s just nonsensical claptrap. As is the proposition that if we pull out, others will fill the gap …well let them. What kind of twisted logic is it that says we should cozy up to murderers because if we don’t, others will.

And there’s an additional matter that I wish someone would put to the Prime Minister one day in Question Period: what kind of feminism is it that sells weapons to a government steeped in misogyny?

There is of course an elephant in the room: between two and three thousand jobs at General Dynamics in London, Ontario. I absolutely affirm the point: we cannot be indifferent to the lives and prospects of working-people. But if those jobs are crucial, as they are, and if the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia is odious, as it is, then a serious, progressive government pulls out all the stops to create three thousand jobs in another manufacturing environment, or another sector, or using infrastructure funds in southwestern Ontario … whatever it takes.

It is not beyond our capacity to say no to the Saudis and yes to employment.

And while I’m on an issue of foreign policy, let me address one other matter. The budget was absolutely pathetic on the question of foreign aid. The amount of increase for Official Development Assistance over the next two years is a travesty. The Liberals are maintaining the same level of aid as the Tories … 0.24 per cent of GDP, putting us somewhere between 16th and 20th on the development assistance scale of OECD countries. It’s particularly outrageous when the target of 0.7 per cent — almost three times as much — was fashioned by the great iconic Liberal himself, Lester Pearson.

Prime Minister Trudeau has to understand that when your foreign aid is paltry, and your commitment to human rights is suspect, and your climate change policy is a charade, and you run for the Security Council, you’re putting a successful run at risk.

Seventh: Climate change. This is tough. I acknowledge that. I listened carefully to Premier Notley.

But frankly, around global warming, there’s a rallying cry for the Party because the position of the Prime Minister is no position at all. At the Federal level, there is a serious vacuum of content and leadership; there is instead a superfluity of twaddle and rhetoric. There are some provinces wrestling with the response to global warming, a variety of policies that may or may not work, but at least it shows a twitch of concern on the part of provincial jurisdictions, compared to a Federal government that presents the stance of a limp bystander.

Oh yes, the Prime Minister went to Paris, and shared in the celebratory jamboree. But the bitter truth about Paris that is so hard to acknowledge, given the public relations frenzy, is that it was a failure. Everything that was agreed on is voluntary; every target is voluntary; every mode of reporting is voluntary: there’s not a single mandatory requirement except to report every five years.

We don’t have five years.

When you add up all the pledges, all the targets submitted by every country at Paris, the world faces a terrifying temperature rise way above the 2 degrees centigrade that is contained in the Paris Declaration and is supposed to keep the planet from self-immolation, let alone the 1.5 degrees centigrade that is the aspirational hope. And where Canada is concerned, our targets still reflect the bogus figures set by the Neanderthals who stalked the political landscape for the last ten years.

I’m kept awake at night thinking of what our grandchildren will face. I have some history here. Please forgive this brief detour.

Back in June of 1988, at the request of then Prime Minister Mulroney, I chaired the first major international conference on climate change. It was an amazing assemblage of 300 politicians, academics and scientists from across the planet, held in Toronto, opened by Gro Harlem Brundtland, the Prime Minister of Norway who had just tabled her epic report, Our Common Future, the product of the Commission on Environment and Development. She was followed by James Hansen, of the Goddard Space Institute, who had just completed testimony before a senate sub-Committee in the United States, making the point that June of 1988 was the hottest month on record.

The debate raged for several days raising all the issues with which everyone is familiar. At the end of the conference, a colleague and I were asked to draft a Declaration to reflect the sense of the proceedings.

This was our opening paragraph: “Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally-pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war. The earth’s atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate … these changes represent a major threat to international security and are already having harmful consequences over many parts of the globe”. We then set out a number of specific recommendations covering every facet of global warming, recommendations that were still relevant at the time of the Kyoto Accord, recommendations that are still relevant today.

It’s 28 years later. The progress — relative to the targets of 1988 — is negligible.

I’ve taught climate change as part of a course on the Millennium Development Goals and then Sustainable Development Goals for ten years at McMaster, McGill and Ryerson universities. I’m obsessed by the subject. And for what it’s worth, I believe the world is headed for an apocalyptic event between 2030 and 2050 that is absolutely irreversible. It will be one of those hallucinatory climatic convulsions. The damage we’ve done to the planet, and our refusal to confront that damage, constitutes nothing less than a monumental crime against humanity.

And that’s why, it seems to me, the Leap Manifesto is a document worthy of discussion.

Now I readily admit to a conflict of interest. Not only was I at the launch of the Manifesto, but I am reasonably friendly with its authors. Nonetheless, I’m taking my courage in my hands to address what has become a hot issue for this Convention. But I want to do it in a somewhat unorthodox way.

The Leap Manifesto is a radical document; of that there’s no dispute. It contains propositions that cause profound offence in the oil patch. It clearly causes distress to the Premier of Alberta. And I readily concede that amongst many social democrats at this Convention there are levels of intellectual consternation and skepticism.

But that, I would argue, shouldn’t dispatch the Manifesto to obscurity. I’m attracted to the idea that it could become a centrepiece of constituency debate over the next couple of years … the kind of proposition that re-energizes and re-animates, through the lens of a determinedly left-wing analysis, a social democratic party that’s searching for renewed vision. I make no assumptions about the outcome two years hence. I make no assumptions about what would be discarded and what would be endorsed. I know only that the resolution on the floor indicates that Leap, in whole or in part, can be rejected by riding associations, and obviously by provinces.

An intense exchange of views on all the issues raised in the Manifesto can only be healthy. What kind of a Party are we that would run from internal controversy when we seek a re-definition of who we are and where we’re headed?

And at the heart of it lies a truth upon which the entire world agrees: the transformation to a renewable economy.

It’s time to put to bed all the understandable, but misplaced skepticism about the transition to renewables, most specifically, wind and solar. Last year, 2015, was the first year when the expenditure, world-wide, on renewable forms of energy exceeded expenditure on fossil fuels. More, it was the first year when expenditures on renewables by developing countries exceeded that of industrial nations … it’s amazing what’s underway. Just last Monday, the lead editorial in the New York Times carried this headline: “A Renewable Energy Boom”. The editorial ended “The falling cost of renewables is a clear plus. The prospect of keeping energy affordable while saving the planet should inspire leaders to bolder action.” Note the words ‘while saving the planet.’

Isn’t that what we should be fighting for? As always it’s a matter of political will. You want to transform the economy; it can be done: just settle on a crusade to develop renewables. It’s not something that happens overnight, but it can happen. It’s happening in Germany; it’s happening in Denmark; it can happen in Canada. I don’t depreciate the Herculean effort that’s required, but it’s not beyond the capacity of human intelligence to pull it off. And yet nothing in the Liberal budget would make you think that this Federal government cares one whit about a transformation.

Alberta is of course our deeply troubling dilemma. This province fears the further loss of jobs … how could it be otherwise? We all heard Premier Notley today. How could you not feel for the human predicament of this province? If and when there is to be a transition, let it be particularly thorough and careful, and the planning must include, through their unions, the thousands of workers whose jobs and homes and families and lives are on the line. We’re a socialist party for God’s sake; no one can suffer the unceremonious loss of jobs. I say to my trade union colleagues: the workers must never pay a price.

But as everyone wrestles with these issues, these inescapable issues that are visceral in every way, there is an over-riding truth: the move to renewables is the greatest job creation program on the planet. It’s a Marshall Plan for employment.

So simply let the Leap be the entry point to one of the great philosophic and pragmatic debates that engages democratic socialists in Canada.
OK, Let me not knock things through the wall.

I’m always laden by ideological recollection at times like this. I think back to my dad when he was NDP leader and his endless struggles with Liberals in the 1970s … the War Measures Act and wage and price control. I think back to the middle of the 1990s and the craven brutality of the financial cut-backs that we haven’t yet fully recovered from. Like you, I absolutely know what’s coming despite all the folderol of sunny ways and sunny days.

I recognize the painful defeat we suffered. I recognize how tough it is, in a democratic socialist context, to integrate, to harmonize all of these competing and conflicting narratives. I recognize the tension that will exist tomorrow morning in the vote on the leadership.

But I have to end as I began. I’m irrepressibly filled with optimism. Just yesterday Avi reminded me of a phrase from the Pentagon: ‘a target-rich environment’. When it comes to the Liberal government, we live in a target-rich environment. There is so much to fire at. And we fire at it from a determinedly left-wing analysis. And we let the chips fall where they may.

There’s no reason to believe that progressive and principled stands will consign us to the waste bin of history. Indeed, the politics of other countries — the most fascinating being the United States — suggest a tremendous surge of support for those, like Bernie, fighting inequality head-on. And when you consider the social movements in this country … Idle No More, Occupy, Black Lives Matter … there is a ground swell with which we can amalgamate to make our presence dramatically felt in the next campaign.

You know what I hate? I hate being a member of the geriatric class. I hate being in my dotage and over-the-hill. This is almost certainly my last hurrah. I’d love to be in the House of Commons, or running for parliament to stand shoulder to shoulder with the NDP caucus, hounding a government whose flimsy veneer of progressive politics will evaporate before the next election.

Some sixty years ago, David Lewis, in a lecture titled “A Socialist Takes Stock”, wrote: “The modern democratic socialist should proclaim his or her aims loudly and passionately. The equality of men and women is the socialist watchword; the moral struggle against injustice and inequality is the socialist’s duty; to be a strong and powerful voice for common men and women against the abuse and oppression of the privileged minority is the socialist’s function; and to forge an ever finer and higher standard of values and a richer pattern of life and behaviour is the socialist’s dream”.

OTTAWA – Tom Mulcair made it clear Wednesday he intends to stay at the helm of the federal New Democrats until the party chooses his successor — and this time, he enlisted his fellow NDP caucus members to endorse the decision.

Talk of persistent grumbling within the caucus has been dogging the NDP leader ever since he confronted Sunday’s rank-and-file vote of non-confidence by declaring he would wait to leave until after the party had picked his replacement.

Indeed, when he gathered his fellow MPs in the foyer of the House of Commons for a news conference following a longer-than-usual caucus meeting, there was a sense that perhaps a change of heart was coming.

Instead, Mulcair doubled down.

“The reason that I’m here is to make sure that we have stability and continuity as we prepare to have a new leader; that’s what the members decided,” he said after the meeting.

“In the meantime, I was elected by the entire membership as leader; caucus has asked me to stay on until that leadership review, and I’m proud to be able to do that.”

On Sunday, party members overwhelmingly voted to replace Mulcair — a legacy of the party’s crushing third-place finish in last October’s federal election, following a campaign that began with the NDP looking poised to form their first federal government.

The majority of delegates at the event — 52 per cent — voted in favour of a leadership review, which is scheduled to take place within the next 24 months. That means Mulcair could remain leader for up to two years despite having the support of less than half of the delegates at the convention.

In the meantime, Mulcair said he can also be a boon to the party with issues like fundraising.

“I think that is one of the things where I can continue to help if people require my aid,” he said.

“If they want me in to give a hand with that, you better believe that you’re showing all of your experience when you talk about the importance of fundraising, especially with an impending leadership race.”

Mulcair described Wednesday’s discussion as the “best caucus meeting” he has ever attended.

“Every single member of caucus got to say everything thing that was on their mind,” he said. “I can only tell you this: it was an inspiring, uplifting, positive meeting, and the result is with me today.”

The show of solidarity was clearly meant to quash talk among some NDP MPs who have openly questioned whether he ought to be sticking around, considering the unequivocal message that came out of the convention.

Indeed, caucus members all seemed to be singing from the same songbook.

“He has the strength we need to lead us through this transition period and he has the support, the full support of caucus,” said rookie MP Tracey Ramsey.

“I’m very happy that he’s staying on and that he will continue to do his work in the House, which he is fantastic at.”

It is important to remember that delegates who voted in favour of a leadership review can still agree that Mulcair brings many skills to the NDP’s fight against the Liberal government, said Quebec MP Matthew Dube.

“In the interim, as well, let’s face it, we have no doubt that some of my caucus colleagues will be focusing on leadership bids,” he said.

“So, to have as much talent as we can on board, that’s certainly something that’s important.”

The NDP federal council, its key decision-making team, is expected to meet in May to further discuss setting the wheels in motion for a leadership race. And while no one has declared their intention to run, at least two MPs are not ruling it out.

“Right now, it’s really too early to talk about that, and you know, we have time,” Quebec MP Alexandre Boulerice said Wednesday.

“There’s no rush. We’ll see.”

Veteran B.C. MP Nathan Cullen, a 2012 leadership contender, is also considering taking another shot at the job and plans to discuss the possibility with family.

NDP delegates show a banner during the 2016 NDP Federal Convention in Edmonton Alta, on Sunday, April 10, 2016. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson

The Leap Manifesto is overwhelmingly focused on the climate change crisis. While this is a fundamental question of our time, the way the authors of Leap have approached the issue has already driven deep fissures into the NDP. Although the manifesto is vaguely worded on most issues, it is insistent on stopping pipelines and comes very close to saying that resources should be left in the ground. There is very little in the document on how the transition to a green economy—an entirely good idea—would work.

In Canada, since the beginning of European settlement on Indigenous land began four centuries ago, the economy has centred on primary sector industries. The transition to a new economy is therefore fundamental. Very large regions of Canada are dependent on primary sector industries. Leap’s emphasis on stopping pipelines makes the highest priority the blocking of Alberta oil from being shipped to markets across Canada. When the Notley government in Alberta struggles in a difficult economic situation to push both a green and an egalitarian agenda, the manifesto offers little common ground for dialogue. The economic decline in Alberta and the rising unemployment its people face should be addressed in ways other than implying that Alberta resources are the enemy.

The Leap Manifesto is much harder on the extraction of resources than it is on the growing inequality that is at the heart of contemporary capitalism. Inequality in wealth and wages has now reached levels not seen since 1928 in North America. This needs to be the starting point for a contemporary socialist statement of principles.

How do we build the new green economy? That is the question. How do we employ workers in every region to do this? And how do we create the new green industries that will be at the heart of the new economy?

How do we ensure that large corporations no longer set the economic agenda and that the rich pay their share of taxes? How do we move to the elimination of tuition at post-secondary institutions in Canada at a time when so many young people are blocked from attending or are saddled by debt?

These questions are given very short shrift in Leap. Instead, the document suggests that most new jobs will be created in a host of caregiving sectors. That may sound good if you live in the Annex in downtown Toronto. But what does it say to miners in Sudbury, steelworkers, autoworkers, workers in the energy sector in Alberta, and to the young on Native reserves who have been abandoned by the larger society to a marginal existence?

And what about agriculture? Leap makes it sound as though we are about to shift to local agriculture directed at local markets. Have the people who wrote this ever looked at the agricultural sector in this country?

It’s no wonder that so many people are saying that Leap is a document for elites and not the majority of Canadians.

I don’t see the Leap as a manifesto of the left.

A political statement of the left would set out the predicaments people confront in Canada and the wider world. A good place to begin what would be a lengthy discussion would be to focus on the problems of a younger generation, one that is face to face with the increasing inequality in contemporary capitalism.

It is no accident that Millennials have taken up the struggle for a new politics in so many parts of the world.

They have been noteworthy for their political action in Syriza in Greece, in Podemos in Spain, and in propelling left-winger Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the U.K. Labour Party, much to the surprise and horror of the party establishment. The energy of the young has driven the highly effective campaign of democratic socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Hundreds of thousands of Millennials in France have taken to the streets to protest the tired Socialist government’s proposed changes to labour laws that would discriminate against young workers.

If the NDP wishes to reverse its decades-old shift to the political centre, it needs to begin by addressing the ways Canadians are up against an ever-more unequal society in which democracy itself is at risk. Out of that recognition of what capitalism has become in our time can emerge a strategy for a green economy that the population at large can create and endorse.

James Laxer is a professor of political science in the Department of Equity Studies at York University in Toronto. In 1969, he wrote the first draft of the Waffle Manifesto, For An Independent Socialist Canada. In 1971, he ran as the candidate of Waffle supporters in the NDP leadership race. He placed second to David Lewis in the field of five candidates, winning 37 per cent of the vote on the Ottawa convention’s fourth ballot.